Well, that was the point I was trying to get across to the original posters, and the same point Mr Dambrosio makes below, CMYK is a standard that is open. Now maybe there is a proprietary formula for mixing each of the 4 colors by Pantone, but obviously if Toyo inks has its own system, it doesn't matter.I had a supplier who couldn't match a color even with the proper formula, so maybe "Cyan" isn't exactly the same across the ink line.

I think the big argument was over Pantone spot colors and their releasing that system to open source.

I know that this article is getting old now, but the point is that it would be very useful to have a standard for color matching (as Pantone has proved), and standards have to be open.

We know that standards are things that help everybody be on the same page. There are several standards that the whole world, or large sections of it, depend on. There is UTC (Universal Coordinated Time) that makes it so that everywhere in the world, events can be scheduled. There are measures of mass and length like grams and meters. Even when you cross from one set of standards to another that addresses the same thing, there are standard formulas for converting between them.

Now, imagine if to measure the length of something, you had to pay for the right to use meters. You could use your own unit of measurement of course, but nobody else would know what that was (unless perhaps it was yards :-) - Actually, we're assuming no open standard existed). If there were a standard that you could purchase the right to use, then what about people who could not afford to purchase the right? Would that mean they didn't deserve to be on the same page as everyone else when it came to telling the length of something? Of course this example seems absurd because when it comes to linear measurement, anyone can use the standard that has been decided upon. (Don't confuse the device that you use to measure with the right to use the measurement, which is why this isn't precisely about Free Software, and incidentally why the term "intellectual property" is misleading and confusing, since it is really about rights and not property.)

When it comes to color matching, the closest thing we have to a standard currently is Pantone. Of course this isn't a true standard, because it's not open for anyone to use. The point is that whether it's Pantone's standard or not, a true, open standard would be useful. Creating such a standard would not stop Pantone from continuing to provide very specific colors for specific purposes. Of course, even now, nobody can own the wavelengths of light that reflect off surfaces, so if someone matches a color independently with their own formula, there is nothing that can be done about it.

Well, Isn't CMYK already a Print industry Standard??  Am I missing something here?? Pantone has licensed a Color Wheel of shades and colorings that they came up with using this standard, which would include the methods used to produce those shades and colors.  What they have not and can not license is anyone else's rights to using that same 4 Pallete scheme to create their own Color Spectrums...

Now to go way extreme on the topic here a bit; what if engineers could come up with a viable, inexpensive way to reproduce CMYK format on video screens and monitors??  Too radical you say, impossible to do -- yeah right!!...

Here's something less extreme, but maybe not practical -- convert printing tech to RGB with simulated shading in the K channel...

Chew on these ideas for the future if you dare!!

JD

Cory and Ginger,

Obviously we all are so passionate over our point of views that none of us closely read what was written. Ginger did not say anything about FREE which was my complaint (the website link she originally provided did, though) and I never once said I was against a competing open source standard. What I was in disagreement with was the perceived demand that Pantone surrender it's proprietary color system to open source users. That first open source link guy was whining that Pantone won't let him use their Palette so he could put it in his software, maybe Toyo would. Boo Hoo.

I have no problem with a group trying to create a new colour stadard/palatte to be used for open source. It's acceptance is up to the printing industry and other software manufacturers who will include the palette in their products. Also, since you're working on such a product Ginger, try and make it match across screen, print and web. That would actually make your standard a better one. My boss would see the color on screen and say that's the one he wanted and I'd have to show him the swatch book and show that it wasn't even close to what was on screen. A friend recently had to match an online violet color for a printing job and of course putting a reflective color swatch against an RGB screen with variances in brightness is not an easy way to match color. Our workaround was to use DigitalColor Meter to get the online color values and use that as a starting point to create a close enough color.

Regardless, if Toyo ink has its own system, the implication that Pantone controls the market flies out the window. Pantone created a standard where there was none and everyone followed it. If you have a lousy pressman, the colour isn't going to match, anyway.

vinyl is making a comeback, i heard!

To me, this is a lot of talk about nothing. Here's why:

The issue has arisen from Pantone allowing the licensing of a particular color for a particular customer. What does this mean, exactly? Well, basically, that mixing formula cannot be sold to someone else. Does it mean that the exact same color cannot be used? I don't think so. It's certainly possible to duplicate colors that are shown on the web. I'm pretty sure it's possible to duplicate a printed color, given a sample. Will you end up with the exact same mix? Possibly, even probably not. Will anyone be able to tell the difference with the naked eye? Again, possibly, even probably not. Doesn't that mean that the result is the same color? It walks like a duck and talks like a duck so it must be a duck, as the saying goes.

For those who can actually tell the difference between Coca-Cola Red and the equivalent that's been 'color-picked' from their website, I say, "More power to ya. Have at it. Have fun with it." For the rest of us, who really cares? I know I don't.

Ginger, I arrived here by way of BoingBoing, where I also posted the following comment.

My first thought is that Opencolor is a fantastic idea and long overdue -- it would've revolutionized printing about 20 years ago. My second thought is that the competitive landscape has shifted away from the need for more color specifications.

The installed user base for ink specifications is declining (print is dying, or something like that), so competition space is shrinking. These days most people have little use for Pantone formulas...I routinely have to describe to freelance clients what a PMS number even *is*. No one (at my end of the market anyway) even cares about having their own PMS number. Correct color isn't even on the radar, because digital printers can match RGB color pretty well. Heck, my $100 inkjet printer has 8 inks. If I get all my devices on the same ICC profile and use a bright stock, I can print pretty good swatches for the doggy daycare.

I'm also the full-time web designer for an international nonprofit. At the *really* low end of the market this is a total nonissue -- see for example http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/have_mercy_on_my_logo.php

And for the customers (and their vendors) who want truly custom colors -- the cost of a proprietary color format is actually seen as insurance against brand piracy. I reckon only one company has exclusive global rights to the Pantone formula for Coca Cola red. You're free to try to duplicate that color in another scheme for ink formulas (and copyleft it, too), but from Coke's perspective, the proprietary format is a feature, not a bug.

Finally, starting a printing business isn't cheap, and buying proprietary inks (& ink formulas) is a cost that can be passed directly to the customer, along with paper, diecuts, etc. So the promise of "free-as-in-beer" doesn't have a lot of pull.

I'm amazed by how many of the rootin'-tootin'-capitalists here take it as an article of faith that companies will do better when they have no competition, and treat competition as an evil.

We have a name for the kind of economy where the government intervenes to keep competition out of a market. It's not "capitalist."

If a firm, a group of volunteers, or an individual have found an economically viable* way of entering a market dominated by an established firm, then capitalism rightly celebrates this, especially if the product of that entry is disruption and a fall in prices (especialy when the price falls to zero).

There is no capitalist virtue in treating a company like a charity and giving it money because "it deserves to get paid." If you believe in markets, then you believe in finding the most competitive offering in the marketplace, where competitive balances out all the internal and external costs, including labor conditions, pricing, quality, etc.

The Open Colour project is trying to produce a disruptive and innovative entrant into a stagnant, slow-moving market. I worked in prepress 15 years ago, and I find that when it comes to process colors, pretty much everything that applied then applies now (the same is not true of, say, networking, layouts, interactive development, etc). What's more, the cost of Pantone inks and books hasn't fallen substantially in that time (compare with microcontrollers, storage, etc).

To revile these social entrepreneurs for daring to threaten the bottom line of a corporation (and to imply that this corporation needs a broader regulatry monopoly to protect itself from disruptive innovation) is the opposite of capitalism. It's planned economics 101, where sentimental affection for a large, profitable concern (that does not reciprocate your affection, believe me!) replaces the idea of fair, competitive markets as the means of driving competition.

So, tovarich, I'll stick with my free market, Free Software projects, and continue to rail against the Politburo's interventions in the marketplace to pick winners and give them perpetual monopolies over the inventions they lay claim to.

* Economically viable != profitable. "Economically viable" means, "something that can be reliably accomplished without breaking the law." It's economically viable to grow your own basil on your windowsill. It's economically viable to lay out your kids' birthday invitations on your computer and print them out at home. It wasn't always economically viable to do this latter. Technology broadens the realm of "economically viable" by reducing overheads and production costs. Right now, it's not economically viable to design your own multi-core nanolithographed chips -- but give it a couple years.

@artfrankmiami

I think, first of all, that it's important to understand Free and Open. Many people outside the F/LOSS (Free/Libre Open Source Software) community conflate the two. In fact, Free and Open are two very different and often contentious concepts. Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software movement, sums it up nicely: "For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, 'Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.'" You can read the rest of what he has to say about the distinction between Free and Open here.

As far as the discussion about existing commercial standards opening up goes, I will admit that it's another contentious issue with two very different camps. In fact, the portion of the Open Colour Standard project that I was representing is behind the idea of creating a new, completely open standard, modifiable and redistributable, not tied to any one ink manufacturer. Fair disclosure: I'm personally active in this group and have been working on such a standard for the last year. It's probably due to my personal connection that the following link was not included in the original post. It may, however, bear looking at, given your perception of the project: http://adaptstudio.ca/ocs/.

As far as your last comment ("But that costs money unless someone volunteers.") goes, I've personally been working on the project for the last year, not making any profit from it and in fact sinking in my own time, effort and money, in hopes of creating something that will be useful to myself and to others, which is exactly in the spirit of F/LOSS. And I'm not the only one who's been doing that.