On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Adam D. Moss wrote:
2) It might be argued that the basic dependance and interconnection
of a not-GPL-compatible plug-in with the GPL GIMP core via libgimp
and the wire protocol is intimate enough that the two cannot be
considered independent and separate
Nathan Carl Summers wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Adam D. Moss wrote:
2) It might be argued that the basic dependance and interconnection
of a not-GPL-compatible plug-in with the GPL GIMP core via libgimp
and the wire protocol is intimate enough that the two cannot be
considered independent
Adam D. Moss wrote:
I agree that it would be wise to point out this explicit exemption
for pdb calls into the GIMP LICENSE file. I'll do this soon if I
don't get beaten to it.
Done, for 1.2 and 1.3. (If anyone disagrees with the specifics,
pull it...)
--Adam
--
Adam D. Moss . ,,^^ [EMAIL
Adam D. Moss wrote:
Adam D. Moss wrote:
I agree that it would be wise to point out this explicit exemption
for pdb calls into the GIMP LICENSE file. I'll do this soon if I
don't get beaten to it.
Done, for 1.2 and 1.3. (If anyone disagrees with the specifics,
pull it...)
--Adam
can someone
Carol Spears wrote:
can someone explain these license problems in perfectly good
fuzzy american words, complete with adjectives and interjections;
perhaps limited to only 3 conjunctions for me?
1) The GPL doesn't allow a GPL and a not-GPL-compatible code unit
to be intimately linked together.
Adam D. Moss wrote:
Carol Spears wrote:
can someone explain these license problems in perfectly good
fuzzy american words, complete with adjectives and interjections;
perhaps limited to only 3 conjunctions for me?
1) The GPL doesn't allow a GPL and a not-GPL-compatible code unit
to be
Carol Spears wrote:
for some reason, i thought that when gnu put the url to the
creative commons page on their site and when the creative
commons put gpl in the list of options, that all the license
problems would go away.
Gosh... no.
stripping everything from the libgimp package and offereing
Hi.
I do not know the X11 license, but changing the license of
the plugin template recalls me of one thing:
If the GIMP is under the GPL, with no exceptions listed were
appropriate, them it is ilegal for non GPL-compatible plugins to be
installed.
This is quite clear on the GPL-FAQ.
And for
Manish Singh wrote:
The libraries needed for a GIMP plug-in are licensed under the LGPL. The
way the architecture is now, plug-ins don't link against the app directly.
Quite so. However, from the GPL FAQ (I presume this is
the root of Joao's excitement):
[s/libstdc/libgcc/g, sorry.]
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
I do not know the X11 license, but changing the license of
the plugin template recalls me of one thing:
If the GIMP is under the GPL, with no exceptions listed were
appropriate, them it is ilegal for non GPL-compatible plugins to be
installed.
The GPL doesn't care
11 matches
Mail list logo
