On 29 May 2002 08:17:16 -0400, "Anthony DeRobertis" <asd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Also, you might want to set a CC on the bugzilla bug to > 148412-quiet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shouldn't result in an ack war. Unfortunately, this is not possible because "148412-quiet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" is not a valid Bugzilla account. It's a pity that Bugzilla accepts only valid Bugzilla accounts in the "CC" field, but I suppose that it makes sense in some cases. > > Here is a sorted list of files that have copyright notices that are > > not compatible with the GPL (derivatives of the BSD license with the > > so-called "advertising clause"): > > If that's just from sorting my list, then beware that I just did some > greps. I didn't actually read the licenses at the top of every file. > > I just grepped for 'supporting'. I also did a couple of greps for several variations of "copyright notice" and "documentation". I think that your list was correct. I only added a note about ./plug-ins/common/gifload.c to Bugzilla #83362. > > The two remaining options are to split the GIMP distribution in two > > packages or to change the license of the distribution: > > - If we split the distribution, we could have one tar archive with GPL > > files (or GPL-compatible files) and another one with the files > > mentioned above. This would also cover some patent problems for the > > GIF and TIFF plug-ins. However, it would not like to move Script-Fu > > out of the main GIMP distribution. > > This isn't really an option, at least for Debian. Debian couldn't > distribute the split-out files because it'd violate the GPL on the rest > of gimp(!). Same as how Debian doesn't distribute things that link GPL'd > code to OpenSSL. > > GIMP would need an exception to the GPL saying this is OK. > > Probably not to practical to change the GIMP license. The files that are affected by this problem are independent plug-ins and one standalone tool (gimp-remote.c), so they are not linked with the other parts of the program. The libraries used by the plug-ins use the LGPL, not the GPL. The only plug-in that contains a significant amount of GPL code and GPL-incompatible code is the Script-Fu interpreter. But for most plug-ins, it should not be too difficult to contact the authors and ask for an exception. This exception would make it possible to distribute the plug-ins without license conflicts, even if they would still have to be distributed separately from the main GIMP package. > > - The other option is to change the license for the distribution > > [...] However, I am not sure that it > > is even possible to have a valid license for the aggregate, while > > still respecting the GPL and the old-style BSD-ish licenses. > > I don't believe it is. See GPL clause 7: [...] Well, I'm not sure. If the GIMP tarball is considered to be a "mere aggregate" of independent software packages (the main application and its plug-ins), it may be possible to have a license for the tarball that allows it to be distributed without violating the GPL or the old-style BSD licenses. Something like this may work (this is a quick draft and it is probably incorrect, but hopefully you will get the general idea): "This archive of source files is an aggregate of several independent software packages, each one covered by its own license. The code in the plug-ins directory is not part of the main GIMP application. Most of the code is covered by the General Public License (GPL) or Lesser GPL but some plug-ins require a copyright notice to be added to the documentation. Please check the individual licenses if you use, modify or distribute any files from the plug-ins directory." In any case, we have to resolve the license conflicts for the files that include both GPL and GPL-incompatible code. But once this is done, I believe that we could still proceed with both options: split the distribution in two packages, or state that the package is an aggregate of individual programs. -Raphaël
