Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:52:57 +0000 From: Nick Lamb <njl98r@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Personally I think The GIMP has been exploited (not by any projects with the name 'GIMP' in them, I hasten to add) more than enough as it is. If someone has a proposal that requires more relaxed licensing then let them bring forth the proposal FIRST. So far I'm not very happy with the results of re-licensing and would be loathe to permit any further erosion. As the lead for one of those non-exploitive projects that uses "GIMP" in the name, I concur. We've never seriously considered relicensing Gimp-print. We've also never gotten any serious pressure to; commercial vendors (in particular, Epson) have no trouble with the GPL license. I'd personally rather not LGPL any of it because even the low level infrastructure could be useful for, say, a printer vendor that wanted to create a proprietary driver. I'd also really rather somebody not write, say, a proprietary dither algorithm and try to sell the package without source. I take a rather dim view of those who believe that there's some kind of inherent "right" to take communal code, make improvements, and then redistribute the combination in proprietary fashion (Microsoft in particular, but they're not the only ones). I'm rather more sympathetic to those who have something that's truly free source, but incompatible with the GPL for some minor reason, but it's not clear to me how to solve that problem. -- Robert Krawitz <rlk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail lpf@xxxxxxxxxxxx Project lead for Gimp Print -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton
