Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
Sven Neumann wrote: > > Hi, > > Since I've touched app/xcf.[ch] too: > > I hereby give my permission for anyone to use the portions of xcf.c > that I have written under the terms of the LGPL. Oh yeah, same here. -- Adam D. Moss. ,,^^[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.foxbox.org/ "... for a man who flies from his fear may find that he has only taken a short cut to meet it."
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
> Here in Germany, a contract needn't be in written word, spoken word would > suffice. Although you might have to convince people that the person spoke > certain words you claim (s)he did. In other words: you need a witness. > > Not that I 'd say that this is a contract or anything -- IANAL and so > on... > In the UK it need not be on paper but we have a saying 'A verbal contract is wortht he paper it is written on'
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Sri Ramkrishna wrote: > Shouldn't this stuff be in writing? Or is this legal? Here in Germany, a contract needn't be in written word, spoken word would suffice. Although you might have to convince people that the person spoke certain words you claim (s)he did. In other words: you need a witness. Not that I 'd say that this is a contract or anything -- IANAL and so on... > On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Sven Neumann wrote: > [snip] > > I hereby give my permission for anyone to use the portions of xcf.c > > that I have written under the terms of the LGPL. Nils -- Nils Philippsen / Berliner Straße 39 / D-71229 Leonberg // +49.7152.209647 [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offence. -- Edsger W. Dijkstra
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
Shouldn't this stuff be in writing? Or is this legal? sri On Tue, 6 Jun 2000, Sven Neumann wrote: > Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 00:05:24 +0200 > From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Phil Schwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Federico Mena Quintero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > Jens Finke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf > > Hi, > > Since I've touched app/xcf.[ch] too: > > I hereby give my permission for anyone to use the portions of xcf.c > that I have written under the terms of the LGPL. > > Please note that we consider to add a thumbnail of the image > composition to the XCF file format. This might even happen before > 1.2... > > > Salut, Sven >
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
Hi, Since I've touched app/xcf.[ch] too: I hereby give my permission for anyone to use the portions of xcf.c that I have written under the terms of the LGPL. Please note that we consider to add a thumbnail of the image composition to the XCF file format. This might even happen before 1.2... Salut, Sven
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 03:34:17AM +, Jay Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Until very recently the code in xcf.c and xcf.h had no copyright notices > at all in them. I don't think this puts those files into the public domain A copyright notice has not much to do with the license in most parts of the world. According to the Berne convention (something the US has signed but not ratified yet for example) anything you find which doesn't have an explicit license mustn't be used, looked at, copied etc..., thus giving authors a maximum of assurance. > I hereby give my permission for anyone to use the portions of xcf.c > that I have written under the terms of the LGPL. The problem, of course, will be S&P, which are very difficult to contact. It took quite a long time until I had the license changed from GPL to LGPL for a single file in libgimp, so whoever weants the license changed should act soon ;) -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
> Until very recently the code in xcf.c and xcf.h had no copyright notices > at all in them. I don't think this puts those files into the public domain > but I think it does indicate that the authors may be flexible in their > licensing terms. Actually it indicates there are no rights to use the file granted at all!
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Tue, 30 May 2000 11:27:37 -0400, Phil Schwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >Do you know who all of the copyright holders of that code are? > > At least myself, Peter, Spencer, and Adam Moss. There are almost > certainly others. > > Kelly Until very recently the code in xcf.c and xcf.h had no copyright notices at all in them. I don't think this puts those files into the public domain but I think it does indicate that the authors may be flexible in their licensing terms. I hereby give my permission for anyone to use the portions of xcf.c that I have written under the terms of the LGPL. Jay Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
> RMS claims that this is not allowed without GPL'ing all of > gdk-pixbuf. Otherwise you could just dlopen() any GPL app from your > proprietary app. Not really. It means that the end user application would have to be a GPL application. There is nothing bad with having a LGPL module and a GPL module. This is an issue that will come up in other situation: dynamic modules that are licensed under incompatible libraries. I remember of the top of my head that we wanted gnome-vfs to have some sort of license checking, so applications could say: gnome_vfs_this_app_is_gpl (); And would enable loading GPL modules. For example, for kernel adapted file systems that are ported to the GNOME VFS. Same can be done here, we can have a call: gdk_pixbuf_this_app_is_gpl, and it would turn on the XCF support. Miguel.
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Martin Baulig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Well, then I think you misunderstood me. > > > > What I suggested was added XCF as a nice add-on to gdk-pixbuf for > > the situation where gdk-pixbuf is used under the GPL. > > > > Of cause, this means that you can't use XCF loading in a proprietary > > app where you use gdk-pixbuf under the LGPL. > > Maybe. It's a big can of worms though - can Red Hat and SuSE ship the > XCF add-on, for example? Probably not. Hmm, yes. -- Martin Baulig [EMAIL PROTECTED] (private) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
Martin Baulig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, then I think you misunderstood me. > > What I suggested was added XCF as a nice add-on to gdk-pixbuf for > the situation where gdk-pixbuf is used under the GPL. > > Of cause, this means that you can't use XCF loading in a proprietary > app where you use gdk-pixbuf under the LGPL. > Maybe. It's a big can of worms though - can Red Hat and SuSE ship the XCF add-on, for example? Probably not. Havoc
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Martin Baulig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > d) Keep the XCF loaded GPL > > > > if I understand that correctly, the loaders are shared libraries which > > dnyamically loaded so they can theoretically have different licenses > > or do I miss something ? > > > > RMS claims that this is not allowed without GPL'ing all of > gdk-pixbuf. Otherwise you could just dlopen() any GPL app from your > proprietary app. Well, then I think you misunderstood me. What I suggested was added XCF as a nice add-on to gdk-pixbuf for the situation where gdk-pixbuf is used under the GPL. Of cause, this means that you can't use XCF loading in a proprietary app where you use gdk-pixbuf under the LGPL. -- Martin Baulig [EMAIL PROTECTED] (private) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
Martin Baulig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > d) Keep the XCF loaded GPL > > if I understand that correctly, the loaders are shared libraries which > dnyamically loaded so they can theoretically have different licenses > or do I miss something ? > RMS claims that this is not allowed without GPL'ing all of gdk-pixbuf. Otherwise you could just dlopen() any GPL app from your proprietary app. Havoc
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Federico Mena Quintero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > However, there is the issue of licensing. Gdk-pixbuf is released > > under the LGPL, and the XCF loader uses big chunks of GPLed code from > > the GIMP. I am not sure what is the best way to proceed. > > > > Well, there are not many options. > > a) You find all the authors of that GPL code and get the license >changed (avoiding this mess is the advantage of copyright >assignment...) > > b) You don't include the code in gdk-pixbuf > > c) You do a clean-room reimplementation of the code What's wrong with d) Keep the XCF loaded GPL if I understand that correctly, the loaders are shared libraries which dnyamically loaded so they can theoretically have different licenses or do I miss something ? Sure, I'd prefer a) - but IMO d) is much better than b) or even c). -- Martin Baulig [EMAIL PROTECTED] (private) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work)
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
On Tue, 30 May 2000 20:04:02 +0200 (MEST), Jens Finke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >I think c) is the best solution. It's surely quite hard to find _all_ >contributors to the code. Actually, I think that the version that was initially put into CVS was pure S&P, so the CVS log should adequately document all contributors since then. Kelly
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
On 30 May 2000, Havoc Pennington wrote: > Federico Mena Quintero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > However, there is the issue of licensing. Gdk-pixbuf is released > > under the LGPL, and the XCF loader uses big chunks of GPLed code from > > the GIMP. I am not sure what is the best way to proceed. > > > > Well, there are not many options. > > a) You find all the authors of that GPL code and get the license >changed (avoiding this mess is the advantage of copyright >assignment...) > > b) You don't include the code in gdk-pixbuf > > c) You do a clean-room reimplementation of the code I think c) is the best solution. It's surely quite hard to find _all_ contributors to the code. And b) isn't a good solution if you imagine what cool applications could be done with a xcf-loader module (e.g. nice image cataloging tools). Also there are a lot of modifications to the original gimp code in the xcf-loader yet. So a clean rewrite is probably the best solution for everyone. Regards, Jens
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
Austin Donnelly wrote: > > On Tuesday, 30 May 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Tue, 30 May 2000 11:27:37 -0400, Phil Schwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > >Do you know who all of the copyright holders of that code are? > > > > At least myself, Peter, Spencer, and Adam Moss. There are almost > > certainly others. > > I can't remember if it was me or Jay Cox which added the resolution > property reading/writing code. But if it was me, I hereby give > permission for the licence on my portions to be changed to LGPL. I did the GimpUnit loading/saving stuff. Go ahead and make it LGPL. BTW, I'd suggest that we put the xcf code into a library for Gimp 2.0. Gdk-Pixbuf and whatever-image-viewer will then use the same code as The GIMP for loading XCFs. ciao, --Mitch
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
On Tuesday, 30 May 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 30 May 2000 11:27:37 -0400, Phil Schwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >Do you know who all of the copyright holders of that code are? > > At least myself, Peter, Spencer, and Adam Moss. There are almost > certainly others. I can't remember if it was me or Jay Cox which added the resolution property reading/writing code. But if it was me, I hereby give permission for the licence on my portions to be changed to LGPL. Austin
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
On Tue, 30 May 2000 11:27:37 -0400, Phil Schwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >Do you know who all of the copyright holders of that code are? At least myself, Peter, Spencer, and Adam Moss. There are almost certainly others. Kelly
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
Federico Mena Quintero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > However, there is the issue of licensing. Gdk-pixbuf is released > under the LGPL, and the XCF loader uses big chunks of GPLed code from > the GIMP. I am not sure what is the best way to proceed. > Well, there are not many options. a) You find all the authors of that GPL code and get the license changed (avoiding this mess is the advantage of copyright assignment...) b) You don't include the code in gdk-pixbuf c) You do a clean-room reimplementation of the code Havoc
Re: XCF loader for gdk-pixbuf
On May 30, Federico Mena Quintero wrote: > However, there is the issue of licensing. Gdk-pixbuf is released > under the LGPL, and the XCF loader uses big chunks of GPLed code from > the GIMP. I am not sure what is the best way to proceed. > > I would appreciate your suggestions. Do you know who all of the copyright holders of that code are? -Phil
