RaphaXl Quinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unfortunately, the license used in these files contains the "advertising
> clause" that is incompatible with the GPL. The copyright notice and the
> permission notice must appear not only in the code, but also in the
> supporting documentation (help pages, GIMP manual, whatever). This
> extends to any derivative works, so this is not compatible with the GPL
> because anyone re-using this code for any purpose would be required to
> add these notices in the code and in the documentation. The GPL does
> not allow that kind of restrictions: "You may not impose any further
> restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
I don't see any problem in adding the necessary info to the
documentation that comes with the respective plug-ins. IMO it should
be sufficient to change the gimp-remote man-page and add the info to
the help-pages for the affected plug-ins. We could also mention the
facts in our README but then we have IMO advertized the facts well
enough to satisfy everyone. But, of course, IANAL. Perhaps we should
ask the FSF for legal advice?
> Another problem is that the GIMP (the whole package, not only the core)
> is usually advertised as being released under the GPL (or GPL + LGPL).
> This is what is mentioned on our home page (www.gimp.org) and this is
> what appears in most binary distributions. This is stated for example
> in gimp.spec.in, which creates gimp.spec for RPM distros.
> The GPL cannot be applied to the whole package, because of the problems
> mentioned above. So we have to change the license for the source
> tarball and try to inform those who build binary packages, or stop
> distributing the files that are not GPL-compatible.
I don't agree. The core and libgimp is GPL and LGPL and should be
advertized as such. Noone will ever link against one of the affected
plug-ins and calling them through the PDB shouldn't be an issue.
Gimp-developer mailing list