On 29 May 2002 08:17:16 -0400, "Anthony DeRobertis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, you might want to set a CC on the bugzilla bug to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Shouldn't result in an ack war.
Unfortunately, this is not possible because "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
is not a valid Bugzilla account. It's a pity that Bugzilla accepts only
valid Bugzilla accounts in the "CC" field, but I suppose that it makes
sense in some cases.
> > Here is a sorted list of files that have copyright notices that are
> > not compatible with the GPL (derivatives of the BSD license with the
> > so-called "advertising clause"):
> If that's just from sorting my list, then beware that I just did some
> greps. I didn't actually read the licenses at the top of every file.
> I just grepped for 'supporting'.
I also did a couple of greps for several variations of "copyright
notice" and "documentation". I think that your list was correct. I
only added a note about ./plug-ins/common/gifload.c to Bugzilla #83362.
> > The two remaining options are to split the GIMP distribution in two
> > packages or to change the license of the distribution:
> > - If we split the distribution, we could have one tar archive with GPL
> > files (or GPL-compatible files) and another one with the files
> > mentioned above. This would also cover some patent problems for the
> > GIF and TIFF plug-ins. However, it would not like to move Script-Fu
> > out of the main GIMP distribution.
> This isn't really an option, at least for Debian. Debian couldn't
> distribute the split-out files because it'd violate the GPL on the rest
> of gimp(!). Same as how Debian doesn't distribute things that link GPL'd
> code to OpenSSL.
> GIMP would need an exception to the GPL saying this is OK.
> Probably not to practical to change the GIMP license.
The files that are affected by this problem are independent plug-ins and
one standalone tool (gimp-remote.c), so they are not linked with the
other parts of the program. The libraries used by the plug-ins use the
LGPL, not the GPL. The only plug-in that contains a significant amount
of GPL code and GPL-incompatible code is the Script-Fu interpreter. But
for most plug-ins, it should not be too difficult to contact the authors
and ask for an exception.
This exception would make it possible to distribute the plug-ins without
license conflicts, even if they would still have to be distributed
separately from the main GIMP package.
> > - The other option is to change the license for the distribution
> > [...] However, I am not sure that it
> > is even possible to have a valid license for the aggregate, while
> > still respecting the GPL and the old-style BSD-ish licenses.
> I don't believe it is. See GPL clause 7: [...]
Well, I'm not sure. If the GIMP tarball is considered to be a "mere
aggregate" of independent software packages (the main application and
its plug-ins), it may be possible to have a license for the tarball that
allows it to be distributed without violating the GPL or the old-style
Something like this may work (this is a quick draft and it is probably
incorrect, but hopefully you will get the general idea): "This archive
of source files is an aggregate of several independent software
packages, each one covered by its own license. The code in the plug-ins
directory is not part of the main GIMP application. Most of the code is
covered by the General Public License (GPL) or Lesser GPL but some
plug-ins require a copyright notice to be added to the documentation.
Please check the individual licenses if you use, modify or distribute
any files from the plug-ins directory."
In any case, we have to resolve the license conflicts for the files that
include both GPL and GPL-incompatible code. But once this is done, I
believe that we could still proceed with both options: split the
distribution in two packages, or state that the package is an aggregate
of individual programs.
Gimp-developer mailing list