Hi, Nick Lamb <njl98r@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, Dec 22, 2002 at 05:24:03PM +0000, Adam D. Moss wrote: > > The goal (I thought) was to keep the lowest levels (GEGL etc) > > of GIMP's back-end LGPL. > > I don't see any reason to do that. Are any of us likely to benefit from > (usually small and rather poor) developers "ripping" off these parts of > The GIMP and re-using them in various dodgy shareware apps? that was not the idea behind it. Rather the rationale to license libgimp as LGPL was to allow for commercial closed-source plug-ins. With the current plug-in design the library that needs to be linked to a plug-in is rather small and it makes sense to keep it LGPL. As soon as we start to move more of the GIMP's core functionality into libraries we might however decide to license these as GPL. The situation for commercial plug-ins wouldn't change, they could continue to use the functionality provided thru the PDB. Salut, Sven
