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
