Manish Singh wrote:
The libraries needed for a GIMP plug-in are licensed under the LGPL. The
way the architecture is now, plug-ins don't link against the app directly.
Quite so. However, from the GPL FAQ (I presume this is
the root of Joao's excitement):
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
This implies that it *may* be quite plausible for the GIMP
core to be considered as part of a plugin (or vice versa).
Considered by whom, though, is another question. As I said,
the ones to take umbrage at this binary coupling would be
us, the developers, and we clearly don't intend to. But it
probably worth making this clear as an explicit exemption
in the LICENSE (this isn't an unusual action, for example GCC's
libstdc code is GPL-licensed with exemptions for the resulting
binary so as not to GPL-infect every C program built with
with GCC[1]).
--Adam
[1] Except for GCC versions circa 3.1 where they forgot
to exempt some portions of the code that ends up in the
installed libstdc so the aggregate libstdc and hence almost
all C programs built with that compiler are *technically* GPL-
infected -- but still, their intent is clear, that this
was simply an oversight and they have no intention of asserting
the GPL on their users.
--
Adam D. Moss . ,,^^ adam@xxxxxxxx http://www.foxbox.org/ co:3
That gum you like is going to come back in style.
