On Sun, Dec 22, 2002 at 05:24:03PM +0000, Adam D. Moss wrote: > The goal (I thought) was to keep the lowest levels (GEGL etc) > of GIMP's back-end LGPL.
I don't see any reason to do that. Are any of us likely to benefit from (usually small and rather poor) developers "ripping" off these parts of The GIMP and re-using them in various dodgy shareware apps? Is there an existing architecture that people will use instead if we "threaten" them with the very reasonable terms of the GNU GPL? Personally I think The GIMP has been exploited (not by any projects with the name 'GIMP' in them, I hasten to add) more than enough as it is. If someone has a proposal that requires more relaxed licensing then let them bring forth the proposal FIRST. So far I'm not very happy with the results of re-licensing and would be loathe to permit any further erosion. I've always thought of VIPS (which is used extensively by some members of my research group) as a very different type of app from The GIMP, but I don't doubt that there's some commonality which could be exploited. Nick. _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
