Branko Collin wrote:
>
> Aargh! My apologies for an earlier mail, I must have accidentally hit
> the Send button. :-(
You seem to have forgotten to snip a fair amount of my mail too
:)
> On 11 May 2003, at 14:52, David Neary wrote:
> > The way I see it, there are 3 solutions -
[snip solutions 1 and 2]
> Did I miss a solution (you said three)?
Ah - the third solution is to put the whole issue on the back
burner, release 1.2.4 anyway, and let third parties figure out
what to do. Basically, to ignore it as an issue and remove
blocker status from the bug. Forgot that one :)
> >From an older thread ("Copyrights and licenses", May 2001):
> > You are right. I was speaking about plug-ins/scripts
> > distributed with The GIMP. We have choosen to make libgimp
> > LGPL to allow others to choose different licenses for their
> > plug-ins, but we will refuse to distribute them with The GIMP.
>
> So it would seem the policy was only to allow GPL'ed plug-ins, even
> if we don't have to.
Which is why we should drop nlfilter if we can't relicence it
with the author's permission.
> > In any case, I think that we should split it into 3 bugs,
> > nlfilter, gif and SIOD licencing, and for the rest, just declare
> > everything GPL.
>
> Can anyone but the author declare something to be GPL'ed? How does
> that work?
If the non-GPL code is from a BSD licenced app, and is small
enough not to be considered a derived work, then the inclusion of
the original code has no licencing implications for the new code.
At least that's my understanding of the issue.
So when I say "declare everything GPL", I mean "don't get our
knickers in a twist over 20 lines of code borrowed from a BSD
licenced application" - if it is really 20 or 30 lines, then the
likelihood is that whatever we ship wouldn't be called a
derivative work, and we're free to licence it however we want.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
David Neary,
Lyon, France
E-Mail: bolsh@xxxxxxxx
