Hi, Thx for all the feedback!
My application can function without gimp. I only use gimp to stitch together and save a larger image as an optional last step. I think I'll drop gimp and handle it myself, so I can have a single package for distribution - in addition to open sourcing the whole thing. Once again, thx for all the feedback, and if anyone is interested, here are some screenshots from my drawing app: http://www.conceptualinertia.net/aoakenfo/flash-drawing Cheers, Ash On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Christopher Curtis <[email protected]>wrote: > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Graeme Gill <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > What counts > > is dependence. > > I think all of your arguments are wrong, but on this point you may be > right. I didn't realize that the GIMP is GPLv3 now, which is a very > different license. GPLv3 is very fuzzy about linking. The > appropriate FAQ then is this: > > ----- > The difference between this [communicating at arm's length] and > “incorporating” the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of > substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two > programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one > program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the > GPL has to cover the whole thing. > ----- > > Section 5 of the GPLv3 states only: > > ----- > A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent > works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, > and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, > in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an > “aggregate” [...] > ----- > > So our legal situation appears to be "not an extension of the work and > not combined to make a larger program" -- the significance of this > being under 'Section 5: Modified Source' instead of 'Section 4: > Verbatim Copies' is not entirely clear to me. > > > > However, the GIMP LICENSE file states: > > --- > * If you create a program which invokes (or provides) methods within > (or for) the GPL GIMP application core through the medium of libgimp > or another implementation of the 'procedural database' (pdb) serial > protocol, then the GIMP developers' position is that this is a 'mere > aggregation' of the program invoking the method and the program > implementing the method as per section 2 of the GNU General Public > License. > --- > > This does not talk about running the GIMP from the command line > specifically but does state that you can call into the GIMP core via > libgimp or any other PDB interface and that is considered by the GIMP > team as a 'mere aggregation'. Whether the command line is considered > an 'implementation of the PDB' is not explicitly stated. > > > *** (Sven, Mitch) *** > > This LICENSE text should probably be updated as 'Section 2' of GPLv3 > doesn't talk about aggregations - it's been moved into section 5. It > might also be useful to address this issue directly as the GPLv2 is > generally well understood to allow command line usage as an > 'aggregation', but GPLv3 seems to muddy this distinction. > > > NAL, > Chris > _______________________________________________ > Gimp-developer mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer >
_______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
