On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 10:36, RaphaŽl Quinet wrote:

> The libraries used by the plug-ins use the
> LGPL, not the GPL.

I'm glad to hear that! Since the LGPL allows you to link proprietary
code, I imagine that old-style BSD is just fine. So those just need
splitting out at most.

> The only plug-in that contains a significant amount
> of GPL code and GPL-incompatible code is the Script-Fu interpreter.

That will be a mess to clean up. 

> But
> for most plug-ins, it should not be too difficult to contact the authors
> and ask for an exception.

It'd certainly be easiest if they were willing to license under the GPL.
> > 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),

I'm not sure how the plugins are used by GIMP. 

The FSF says <http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins>
also: <http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCMereAggregation>

It's very arguable that GIMP and its plugins are effectively one
program. Especially since GIMP plugins can only be used from GIMP,
integrate into the mnus of GIMP, etc.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply via email to