On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 07:52:57PM +0000, Nick Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The goal (I thought) was to keep the lowest levels (GEGL etc)
> > of GIMP's back-end LGPL.
> 
> I don't see any reason to do that.

Well, if the developrs of GEGL decide to do that I'd be fine with it.  The
question is wether code from vips could/should be reused. It looks very
extensive (I especially like it's lazy evaluation ;).

And the vips license can't be changed.

So the question is wether the license alone would be a valid reason to
stop using it.

> Is there an existing architecture that people will use instead if we
> "threaten" them with the very reasonable terms of the GNU GPL?

(and if yes, would that be a problem?)

-- 
      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       [EMAIL PROTECTED]      |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |
                                                         |
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to