On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 10:36, Raphaël Quinet wrote: > The libraries used by the plug-ins use the > LGPL, not the GPL. I'm glad to hear that! Since the LGPL allows you to link proprietary code, I imagine that old-style BSD is just fine. So those just need splitting out at most. > The only plug-in that contains a significant amount > of GPL code and GPL-incompatible code is the Script-Fu interpreter. That will be a mess to clean up. > But > for most plug-ins, it should not be too difficult to contact the authors > and ask for an exception. It'd certainly be easiest if they were willing to license under the GPL. > > 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), I'm not sure how the plugins are used by GIMP. The FSF says <http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins> also: <http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCMereAggregation> It's very arguable that GIMP and its plugins are effectively one program. Especially since GIMP plugins can only be used from GIMP, integrate into the mnus of GIMP, etc.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
