On 07 Jun 2002 16:35:46 +0200, "Sven Neumann" <sven@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > RaphaXl Quinet <Raphael.Quinet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > ./plug-ins/common/gif.c (David Koblas) > > > > ./plug-ins/common/tiff.c (Patrick J. Naughton) > > > > > > We already knew about at least these and I was told (on #gimp I think) > > > that it was not a problem. > > > > Whoever told you that was wrong. The text of both licenses includes: > > "provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that > > both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in > > supporting documentation." This is the advertising clause that is not > > compatible with the GPL. As a result, these files cannot be distributed > > with the GIMP as they are now. > > I don't see the problem. The code has the copyright notice as is > required by the original license. We explicitely state the original > authors. Where the heck is the problem?? Same applies for gimp-remote > and the webbrowser plug-in. Unfortunately, the license used in these files contains the "advertising clause" that is incompatible with the GPL. The copyright notice and the permission notice must appear not only in the code, but also in the supporting documentation (help pages, GIMP manual, whatever). This extends to any derivative works, so this is not compatible with the GPL because anyone re-using this code for any purpose would be required to add these notices in the code and in the documentation. The GPL does not allow that kind of restrictions: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." Another problem is that the GIMP (the whole package, not only the core) is usually advertised as being released under the GPL (or GPL + LGPL). This is what is mentioned on our home page (www.gimp.org) and this is what appears in most binary distributions. This is stated for example in gimp.spec.in, which creates gimp.spec for RPM distros. The GPL cannot be applied to the whole package, because of the problems mentioned above. So we have to change the license for the source tarball and try to inform those who build binary packages, or stop distributing the files that are not GPL-compatible. Reminder: the corresponding report in our Bugzilla is: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83362 -Raphaël
