Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
> I do not know the X11 license, but changing the license of
> the plugin template recalls me of one thing:
>
> If the GIMP is under the GPL, with no exceptions listed were
> appropriate, them it is ilegal for non GPL-compatible plugins to be
> installed.
The GPL doesn't care which licence is used before it gets it, as
long as it is consistent with the terms of the GPL (that is, as
long as the program can be released under the GPL without
breaching the opriginal licence). This is the case with the X11
licence. Many people like the idea of their work being used by
the greatest number of people possible, regardless of the
conditions in which it's used. These people choiose a licence
which is more liberal than the GPL.
> This is quite clear on the GPL-FAQ.
> And for great that it may seen for some people to have some proprietary
> plugins developed for the GIMP, that otherwise would not, we get
> better respecting the GPL or __else__.
The X11 licelce is GPL compatible. That means that X11 code can
be released under the GPL, and there's nothing the original
authors can do about it. So there is no problem with code which
is licenced under the X11 licence being included in the gimp.
> To allow for non gpl-compatible plugins to run with the GIMP, the
> license of the GIMP itself must include an exception note, stating that.
And this is horse-bucky. The GIMP provides an interface (the PDB)
via which plug-ins communicate with the gimp core. Nothing
obliges those plug-ins to be released under the GPL. They link
against libgimp (which is lgpl).
Cheers,
Dave.
--
David Neary,
Lyon, France
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
