With such a clarification, there shouldn't be any reason to use the
code as the basis for a GIMP plugin or patch.
g> Did I get you right? If the code wouldn't be used in GIMP, why then
g> any clarification is needed?
g> Could you please clarify this? ;-)
If the code -- or a derivative thereof -- would not be used in GIMP,
then why did the first reply suggest (needlessly) trying to get the
code relicensed as GPL3?
So, this seems to be a misunderstanding.
I meant: if the existing MPOsplits code - or a derivative thereof -
would be integrated into GIMP, then there could be a problem due to
incompatible licenses
(BSD-style vs. GPL 3). So then there were two possibilities: either the
MPOsplits author decides to publish his program under GPL v3 or another
GPLv3-compatible license or
- even simpler - Albrecht asks him for clarification which 'BSD-style
license' he exactly means and depending on this answer a developer
decides to use the existing code or not.
I agree with you for the case that MPOsplits original or derivative code
is not integrated into GIMP and both programs would stay standalone
products.
Then this clarification would be needless.
Best regards,
grafxuser
_______________________________________________
gimp-developer-list mailing list
gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
