On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 05:50:53PM -0500, Bill Dolson <bdolson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > As far as I can determine, for those Plug-ins which are GPLed there > should be no problem with us distributing them so long as we comply with > the license requirements. Yep ;) > some GIMP modules as the basis of an API emulator, notably plug_in.c and plug_in.c is not a gimp module... it´s part of the gimp core. > our non-free software. I assume this request should ultimately be > directed to Peter and Spencer but I wish to put it out for consideration > by the developers. We would also like to be aware of any changes to the > plug-in API by the developers. It is easy: make a list of everybody who has contributed code to that file and ask them about this ;-> Maybe it's even more difficult and you need to ask all major contributors. In any case I'm strictly against making it LGPL - YMMV. > Why should GIMP offer a plug-in API emulation library? It would > enhance the position of GIMP as a viable alternative to Photoshop and > enhance the atttractiveness of GTK as a toolkit and Linux as an OS. But the same could be achieved by making the API library GPL, no need for LGPL. Making it LGPL is only a short way from selling private gimp versions, and I think it contradicts the rationale of the Lesser General Public License (LGPL), see also http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html > I am very interested in anyone's comments on these issues. This was my personal but public comment.. -- -----==- | ----==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |e| -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
