The Skin Patch Debate
Monday, February 24, 2003 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
There is a new technology being developed but its eventual available form will be heavily dependent on the input of thousands of users such as you.
Each year, thousands of skins are created and released. Skins take many many hours to create. But often times, once released, they are never updated. As the software for these skins gains in function, these skins come to look outdated and are no longer used. The proposed answer: Skin patching.
Please read this next part carefully: What Skin patching does is allow third parties to submit updates to an existing skin. But these updates do not contain any parts from the original skins. Instead, they only contain the pieces that have been updated. Or in other words, patches are completely seperate files in themselves. The actual "patching" takes place in software. It would download the original skin and then the updates would be provided as additional sub-styles. If the user applies one of those sub-styles, the program the original skin and then includes the updates when it applies.
For example, let's say someone created a really nice WindowBlinds skin in 2001. But this skin doesn't support Windows XP Start bars, doesn't support the task panel (shellstyle), doesn't support the slider control nor does it support the logon/logoff dialog skinning.
Five different users could submit "patches" to this skin.
Patch 1 would just have the task panel (shellstyle).
Patch 2 would just be the logon/logoff dialog skinning
Patch 3 would have the have the XP Start bar
Patch 4 would have the slider control
Patch 5 would be another rendition of the task panel and it would have the XP Start bar and the logon/logoff skinning.
On a site like WinCustomize (or any other site that supported this technology), when the user chose to download the skin, it would bring up a dialog asking which patches (if any) a user would like to also download.
Once downloaded, when the user went to apply the skin it would bring up a dialog asking which patches they would like to apply. The updates would be displayed to user by widget (so patch 5 contains 3 widgets whereas the others are 1 widget each) to choose which pieces to use.
In this way, older skins could be updated by fans and the original effort to create the skin would be rewarded by keeping the skin fresh and new over the long term.
So where is the debate? How much say should the skin author have? WinCustomize is known for being very protective of skin author rights. But there is the conflict in wanting skin authors work to be kept useful and worthwhile over the long run. Obviously any skin patch that used the original author's graphics would need express written consent. But what about skin patches that don't use any of the graphics from the original skin? I.e. a Shellstyle wouldn't need graphics from the original skin and neither would an XP Start bar. Additionally, what policies should be by default?
Stardock's view is to make it so that the original skin author has the right to deny any skin patches be made for their skin (or at least displayed as part of the skin). Additionally, it believes that original author should have the right to reject individual skin patches from being displayed. But there is also the matter on what the default is. By default, should skin patches be allowed on skins where the author is long gone? Stardock's view is presently that skin patches on those skins would be allowed based on the discretion of the moderator and if the original author returns they can then change the setting if they so choose. This way, the thousands of existing skins can gain a second life and it is Stardock's view that the vast majority of MIA skin authors would prefer that. Moderators would still reject any skin patch that used artwork from the original skin without express written consent however.
What's your view?
Each year, thousands of skins are created and released. Skins take many many hours to create. But often times, once released, they are never updated. As the software for these skins gains in function, these skins come to look outdated and are no longer used. The proposed answer: Skin patching.
Please read this next part carefully: What Skin patching does is allow third parties to submit updates to an existing skin. But these updates do not contain any parts from the original skins. Instead, they only contain the pieces that have been updated. Or in other words, patches are completely seperate files in themselves. The actual "patching" takes place in software. It would download the original skin and then the updates would be provided as additional sub-styles. If the user applies one of those sub-styles, the program the original skin and then includes the updates when it applies.
For example, let's say someone created a really nice WindowBlinds skin in 2001. But this skin doesn't support Windows XP Start bars, doesn't support the task panel (shellstyle), doesn't support the slider control nor does it support the logon/logoff dialog skinning.
Five different users could submit "patches" to this skin.
Patch 1 would just have the task panel (shellstyle).
Patch 2 would just be the logon/logoff dialog skinning
Patch 3 would have the have the XP Start bar
Patch 4 would have the slider control
Patch 5 would be another rendition of the task panel and it would have the XP Start bar and the logon/logoff skinning.
On a site like WinCustomize (or any other site that supported this technology), when the user chose to download the skin, it would bring up a dialog asking which patches (if any) a user would like to also download.
Once downloaded, when the user went to apply the skin it would bring up a dialog asking which patches they would like to apply. The updates would be displayed to user by widget (so patch 5 contains 3 widgets whereas the others are 1 widget each) to choose which pieces to use.
In this way, older skins could be updated by fans and the original effort to create the skin would be rewarded by keeping the skin fresh and new over the long term.
So where is the debate? How much say should the skin author have? WinCustomize is known for being very protective of skin author rights. But there is the conflict in wanting skin authors work to be kept useful and worthwhile over the long run. Obviously any skin patch that used the original author's graphics would need express written consent. But what about skin patches that don't use any of the graphics from the original skin? I.e. a Shellstyle wouldn't need graphics from the original skin and neither would an XP Start bar. Additionally, what policies should be by default?
Stardock's view is to make it so that the original skin author has the right to deny any skin patches be made for their skin (or at least displayed as part of the skin). Additionally, it believes that original author should have the right to reject individual skin patches from being displayed. But there is also the matter on what the default is. By default, should skin patches be allowed on skins where the author is long gone? Stardock's view is presently that skin patches on those skins would be allowed based on the discretion of the moderator and if the original author returns they can then change the setting if they so choose. This way, the thousands of existing skins can gain a second life and it is Stardock's view that the vast majority of MIA skin authors would prefer that. Moderators would still reject any skin patch that used artwork from the original skin without express written consent however.
What's your view?
 |
|
Page 3 of 9 | |
|
|---|
paxx
Reply #42 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:55 AM
Reply #42 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:55 AM
OK, Brad, here's my idea.
I know, it's mostly the same as you've proposed, except for a semantics difference:
1- A skinner skins an XP taskbar. Either in the skin's INI file or on Wincustomize's upload script, he selects a number of "suggested Windowblinds skins" that this taskbar could go well with.
2- A user selects to download a skin that has no XP taskbar
3- A popup comes up, letting him know that this is an older skin and that it has no XP support, but here is a suggested add-on to this skin that could go well with it.
It's basically the same Brad already said with the difference that the patch "suggests" which skins could go well with it, and also, the fact that there could be many skins suggested takes away the automatic link between a specific skin and a specific patch, therefore it takes away the impression that a patch was specifically made to modify an orginal skin.
Of course, if the patch uses or modifies any or the orginal graphics, permission is still needed.
I know, it's mostly the same as you've proposed, except for a semantics difference:
1- A skinner skins an XP taskbar. Either in the skin's INI file or on Wincustomize's upload script, he selects a number of "suggested Windowblinds skins" that this taskbar could go well with.
2- A user selects to download a skin that has no XP taskbar
3- A popup comes up, letting him know that this is an older skin and that it has no XP support, but here is a suggested add-on to this skin that could go well with it.
It's basically the same Brad already said with the difference that the patch "suggests" which skins could go well with it, and also, the fact that there could be many skins suggested takes away the automatic link between a specific skin and a specific patch, therefore it takes away the impression that a patch was specifically made to modify an orginal skin.
Of course, if the patch uses or modifies any or the orginal graphics, permission is still needed.
moshi
Reply #43 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:50 AM
Reply #43 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:50 AM
making the old skins Open Source, eh? the whole thing is that WindowBlinds needs more skins with shellstyles. in the end this will only affect a limited number of skins, so why not mailing the most popular skinners here and ask if the would agree with opening their skins to that SkinPatch thing.
opt-in is a very cool idea.
opt-out is unethical.
opt-in is a very cool idea.
opt-out is unethical.
paxx
Reply #44 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:02 AM
Reply #44 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:02 AM
As per my idea, no permission is needed. No opt-in nor opt-out.
The idea is making the add-ons seperate, independant skins. It would be similar as making a separate Objectbar skin, for example. But the skinner that would make the said add-on could suggest which skins his add-on could be well suited with. Very much like if it was a skin for a completely seperate application. And the rules would then be the same: if the new skinned add-on used or copied the graphics or any skin, then permission would be essential.
I think this would work very well, and the solution to the present problem is probably along those lines.
The idea is making the add-ons seperate, independant skins. It would be similar as making a separate Objectbar skin, for example. But the skinner that would make the said add-on could suggest which skins his add-on could be well suited with. Very much like if it was a skin for a completely seperate application. And the rules would then be the same: if the new skinned add-on used or copied the graphics or any skin, then permission would be essential.
I think this would work very well, and the solution to the present problem is probably along those lines.
moshi
Reply #45 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:10 AM
Reply #45 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:10 AM
paxx: yes, this would be ok. but in reality nobody really wants that. for example with Seer wouldn´t you prefer a shellstyle that matches Seer exactly and not something that has somehow similar colors, but only makes your interface less clean than using no shellstyle?
paxx
Reply #46 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:16 AM
Reply #46 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:16 AM
Well then, if it matches EXACTLY, then permission is needed, as per any other port. End of story. No?
White_Moth
Reply #47 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:25 AM
Reply #47 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:25 AM
Here's an analogy.
"The whole thing is like walking through a thorny thicket with a fully opened can of worms."
However, the "idea" has merit as it could lead to a fresher if not newer way of skin production provided all the artists would act in a community spirit with the newcomers. If not, then we will have an application soley for personal use, which then would take away from SkinStudio as a means to create and also renew skins as a learning experiance which is what I do.
Case in point, I have taken skins from some of the top authors and modified them for personal tastes, and as a way to learn how to create my own. This is not to say that the skins were less than should be, but like everyone else, we all have varying tastes, and I have learned much from this exercise.
So, what have I done, but to change "original intent" for personal use. As such, these modified skins will never leave my computer because they may very well insult the Author by infringing upon that "original intent".
So, will not this new application simply be for "personal use" in the end, because as a community tool, we already know how well that works. I look at our little friend "Widgets for SkinStudio and wonder.
Now we are back to where we started.
"The whole thing is like walking through a thorny thicket with a fully opened can of worms."
However, the "idea" has merit as it could lead to a fresher if not newer way of skin production provided all the artists would act in a community spirit with the newcomers. If not, then we will have an application soley for personal use, which then would take away from SkinStudio as a means to create and also renew skins as a learning experiance which is what I do.
Case in point, I have taken skins from some of the top authors and modified them for personal tastes, and as a way to learn how to create my own. This is not to say that the skins were less than should be, but like everyone else, we all have varying tastes, and I have learned much from this exercise.
So, what have I done, but to change "original intent" for personal use. As such, these modified skins will never leave my computer because they may very well insult the Author by infringing upon that "original intent".
So, will not this new application simply be for "personal use" in the end, because as a community tool, we already know how well that works. I look at our little friend "Widgets for SkinStudio and wonder.
Now we are back to where we started.
moshi
Reply #48 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:27 AM
Reply #48 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:27 AM
until now yes. personally i like the idea of Open Source skins. this way your skins have the opportunity to "live" longer and not die out if a skin format changes. of course it has to be the author´s decision wether he wants that or not. in the Linux community Open Source is standard and it works. one bad thing is that not enough people try to do new things and just update the old, but that´s a different story.
paxx
Reply #49 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:29 AM
Reply #49 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:29 AM
jake: if you use or copy the stlye or the graphics from somebody else, then you need permission to make it public. But you can use it as much as you want for your personnal use.
paxx
Reply #50 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:31 AM
Reply #50 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:31 AM
moshi: open source exists and it's an artist's decision. Some skinners have already made their artwork open source. Dangeruss and Carlitus comes to my mind.
moshi
Reply #51 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:43 AM
Reply #51 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:43 AM
one example i just found 5 minutes ago. http://art.gnome.org/show_theme.php?themeID=369&category=metacity
a new skin for Metacity that is using the code from my Glacier theme (is just as important as the graphics in this format). as i released my Glacier as Open Source it was easier for the other guy to create this new skin.
a new skin for Metacity that is using the code from my Glacier theme (is just as important as the graphics in this format). as i released my Glacier as Open Source it was easier for the other guy to create this new skin.
White_Moth
Reply #52 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:47 AM
Reply #52 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:47 AM
paxx: this is what I said, for personal use.
For me to ask an Author like Treetog for permission in my early stages of design and production, well I don't think I am even ready for that. So here I am, satisfying my personal use as a user.
But am I correct in saying what we are looking to do here is produce unmatched styles and graphics to add to an already created skin in order to avoid permissive rights from an author, or create a hodgepodge of addons to go with the original design?
Suddenly, I am becoming confused.
No offense meant paxx.
I think I need to reread the original post for a fourth time.
For me to ask an Author like Treetog for permission in my early stages of design and production, well I don't think I am even ready for that. So here I am, satisfying my personal use as a user.
But am I correct in saying what we are looking to do here is produce unmatched styles and graphics to add to an already created skin in order to avoid permissive rights from an author, or create a hodgepodge of addons to go with the original design?
Suddenly, I am becoming confused.
No offense meant paxx.
I think I need to reread the original post for a fourth time.
paxx
Reply #53 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:58 AM
Reply #53 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:58 AM
OK jake. Let me rephase my suggestion:
In the case of an add-on that does not copy the style or the graphics of an existing skin, then the add-ons could be considered a separate skin, therefore being applicable to a number of skins. The add-on could be configured to suggest a number of specific skins that it could be matched with.
In the case where somebody is making an add-on the perfectly match the style of an existing skin, the permission is indeed required. As it is for any other port of a skin, be it an Objectbar, a Winamp skin, or whatever.
In the case of an add-on that does not copy the style or the graphics of an existing skin, then the add-ons could be considered a separate skin, therefore being applicable to a number of skins. The add-on could be configured to suggest a number of specific skins that it could be matched with.
In the case where somebody is making an add-on the perfectly match the style of an existing skin, the permission is indeed required. As it is for any other port of a skin, be it an Objectbar, a Winamp skin, or whatever.
HuronJoe
Reply #54 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:11 AM
Reply #54 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:11 AM
In my humble opinion, Yes it is necessary to be able to update or patch various skins. I am not an artist or a skinner but I do emphasize with there opinions (creativity is pretty much synonomus with tempermental).
The issue as I see it is; do we want to stiffle progress or remain static? If you go for the latter then we all would still be using the first edition of Windows.
The solution has already been mentioned by Frogboy in his earier post:
"I do agree another path could be for this all to be done in software. Simply encourage users to submit widgets to the widget section and the author of the widget could specifcy which skin they had in mind (a user could use it on any skin) and then WindowBlinds could connect to that and offer recommendations on the software side."
Also it might be a good idea to put into the process a limitation that would make it extreamly difficult to upload the result of the patched skin. Other then perhaps a screen-shot so that people could decide if it would also work for them on THERE syetems.
After all is not the idea or concept that we are to use these suites for our OWN desktops?
The issue as I see it is; do we want to stiffle progress or remain static? If you go for the latter then we all would still be using the first edition of Windows.
The solution has already been mentioned by Frogboy in his earier post:
"I do agree another path could be for this all to be done in software. Simply encourage users to submit widgets to the widget section and the author of the widget could specifcy which skin they had in mind (a user could use it on any skin) and then WindowBlinds could connect to that and offer recommendations on the software side."
Also it might be a good idea to put into the process a limitation that would make it extreamly difficult to upload the result of the patched skin. Other then perhaps a screen-shot so that people could decide if it would also work for them on THERE syetems.
After all is not the idea or concept that we are to use these suites for our OWN desktops?
HuronJoe
Reply #55 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:27 AM
Reply #55 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:27 AM
BTW Jake, your very good at expressing yourself.
White_Moth
Reply #56 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:53 AM
Reply #56 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:53 AM
I have always considered myself very open minded when it comes to ideas.
Yet for some reason, I find this whole patching idea to be little more than a clever way to make skinning exclusive rather than inclusive.
Why are the top Author's staying silent in this matter, could it be they (of which someday I hope to be one) already know by the looks of "Widgets for SkinStudio" that it will not work for the majority due to the minority?
I resented people coming to my workshop and taking my ideas and hard work and using them for purposes of personal gain without my permission. But I was trying to make living and did not have the time or funding to submit patents or copyrights for my personally helpful inventions. So I simply moved on watching others locally take the credit.
I think in the end, we will have this same problem, as each "old skin" is renewed, the line will become even blurrier.
How can we expect "moderation" when even now moderators are hard pressed to manage what they already need to do; hire more?
I think the only way around this is to go ahead and try it, lets see what happens...
...and if I am right, then I can say, "See, I told you so"
Yet for some reason, I find this whole patching idea to be little more than a clever way to make skinning exclusive rather than inclusive.
Why are the top Author's staying silent in this matter, could it be they (of which someday I hope to be one) already know by the looks of "Widgets for SkinStudio" that it will not work for the majority due to the minority?
I resented people coming to my workshop and taking my ideas and hard work and using them for purposes of personal gain without my permission. But I was trying to make living and did not have the time or funding to submit patents or copyrights for my personally helpful inventions. So I simply moved on watching others locally take the credit.
I think in the end, we will have this same problem, as each "old skin" is renewed, the line will become even blurrier.
How can we expect "moderation" when even now moderators are hard pressed to manage what they already need to do; hire more?
I think the only way around this is to go ahead and try it, lets see what happens...
...and if I am right, then I can say, "See, I told you so"
paxx
Reply #57 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:59 AM
Reply #57 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 9:59 AM
HuronJoe: We would indeed still be using the first version of Windows if Microsoft themselves had not updated their OS. No other company would have been allowed to release newer versions of Windows.
But yes, I picked up on the idea fore-mentionned, but added the possiblity of suggesting more than one specific skin. After all, if a widget doesn't use the graphics or style of any existing skin, then it could most probably work on a number of skins, not just one.
But yes, I picked up on the idea fore-mentionned, but added the possiblity of suggesting more than one specific skin. After all, if a widget doesn't use the graphics or style of any existing skin, then it could most probably work on a number of skins, not just one.
bakerstreet
Reply #58 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:31 AM
Reply #58 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:31 AM
it's an enigma, shrouded in a mystery, wrapped in a tortilla, with some shredded lettuce and sour cream...
I dunno. The concept of mix 'n match widgets is cool within a particular app, but when they start getting carted off to other apps the new skin is a derivative work, and only the original artist can authorize that. I could be misunderstanding, but this seems like more of a site/db issue. I don't think anyone is suggesting allowing the use of the original artist's graphics, so to me the issue is only how the non-derivative, complimentary material will be linked with the original skin/theme.
I guess something like 'link this item with another item' added to the upload form, with each skin entry having a little box of "matching" linked skins. It wouldn't be any more harmful than comments, imho, but people will do it to leech visibility off the major works. You can imagine, if someone can link their work to one of treetog's hugely popular works, it will be an oft (if not well)-used resource.
But then i could be completely misunderstanding this. If so, ignore/abuse me at will. I'll catch up.
I dunno. The concept of mix 'n match widgets is cool within a particular app, but when they start getting carted off to other apps the new skin is a derivative work, and only the original artist can authorize that. I could be misunderstanding, but this seems like more of a site/db issue. I don't think anyone is suggesting allowing the use of the original artist's graphics, so to me the issue is only how the non-derivative, complimentary material will be linked with the original skin/theme.
I guess something like 'link this item with another item' added to the upload form, with each skin entry having a little box of "matching" linked skins. It wouldn't be any more harmful than comments, imho, but people will do it to leech visibility off the major works. You can imagine, if someone can link their work to one of treetog's hugely popular works, it will be an oft (if not well)-used resource.
But then i could be completely misunderstanding this. If so, ignore/abuse me at will. I'll catch up.
HuronJoe
Reply #59 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:40 AM
Reply #59 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:40 AM
Paxx I like your idea that the widget example be usable for all skins. In fact there are quite a few ideas already expressed and thus (IMO)the orginal purpose of the thread.
If Bill Gates had believed in Open Source originally he would not be so rich. When Microsoft first came on the sceen, everybody and there mother wanted there own propritary way of doing things and there was no commanality. Now everyone just takes it for granted that ALL menus on DIFFERENT applications are the same for the same functionality. A simple concept but it took a long time before vendors agreed to it.
If Bill Gates had believed in Open Source originally he would not be so rich. When Microsoft first came on the sceen, everybody and there mother wanted there own propritary way of doing things and there was no commanality. Now everyone just takes it for granted that ALL menus on DIFFERENT applications are the same for the same functionality. A simple concept but it took a long time before vendors agreed to it.
paxx
Reply #60 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:47 AM
Reply #60 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:47 AM
Hum... All the menus on a Mac are pretty much the same from one app to the next. Microsoft didn't invent anything.
Bakerstreet: leaching! Very good point! Hadn't thought of that one.
Bakerstreet: leaching! Very good point! Hadn't thought of that one.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 3 of 9 | |
|
|---|
Reply #41 Tuesday, February 25, 2003 5:31 AM
This is of course a matter between The Skinners and Wincustomise. Users (like me) would love all old WB Skins updated, but users should not figure in the equation.
If the Email thing is too hard, then forget everything.The author has to agree to this concept. However I do not think that every WB Skin in the archive needs to be updated for this patch concept to work. If 500 are patched instead of 2000, its still a lot of rejuvenated skins on the site.