Hi,

RaphaXl Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > > ./gimp-1.2.1.in             (Spencer Kimball, Peter Mattis)
> > > ./gimptool-1.2.1.in         (Owen Taylor, Manish Singh)
> > 
> > This is gibberish. Someone bolted on some boiler plate which claims that
> > the whole of the GIMP is covered by an obnoxious advertising clause.
> > Most likely this happened because they copied an existing manual page
> > source from another project.
> 
> AFAIK, that license refers to the manual pages, not to the whole
> program.  It was certainly added there by mistake, considering who the
> authors of these manual pages are.  So in that case it is probably safe
> to fix the license immediately.

ack. I'll leave this up to Yosh since he's one of the authors and may
change these lines.

> Note that Ben was not the one complaining.  He simply forwarded the
> Debian bug report from Anthony DeRobertis.  And the license is wrong
> anyway, regardless of who wrote the manual pages.
> 
> > > ./plug-ins/common/gif.c     (David Koblas)
> > > ./plug-ins/common/tiff.c    (Patrick J. Naughton)
> > 
> > We already knew about at least these and I was told (on #gimp I think)
> > that it was not a problem.
> 
> Whoever told you that was wrong.  The text of both licenses includes:
> "provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that
> both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
> supporting documentation."  This is the advertising clause that is not
> compatible with the GPL.  As a result, these files cannot be distributed
> with the GIMP as they are now.

I don't see the problem. The code has the copyright notice as is
required by the original license. We explicitely state the original
authors.  Where the heck is the problem?? Same applies for gimp-remote
and the webbrowser plug-in.


Salut, Sven
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to