Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 19:52:57 +0000
   From: Nick Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

   Personally I think The GIMP has been exploited (not by any projects
   with the name 'GIMP' in them, I hasten to add) more than enough as
   it is. If someone has a proposal that requires more relaxed
   licensing then let them bring forth the proposal FIRST. So far I'm
   not very happy with the results of re-licensing and would be loathe
   to permit any further erosion.

As the lead for one of those non-exploitive projects that uses "GIMP"
in the name, I concur.

We've never seriously considered relicensing Gimp-print.  We've also
never gotten any serious pressure to; commercial vendors (in
particular, Epson) have no trouble with the GPL license.  I'd
personally rather not LGPL any of it because even the low level
infrastructure could be useful for, say, a printer vendor that wanted
to create a proprietary driver.  I'd also really rather somebody not
write, say, a proprietary dither algorithm and try to sell the package
without source.

I take a rather dim view of those who believe that there's some kind
of inherent "right" to take communal code, make improvements, and then
redistribute the combination in proprietary fashion (Microsoft in
particular, but they're not the only ones).  I'm rather more
sympathetic to those who have something that's truly free source, but
incompatible with the GPL for some minor reason, but it's not clear to
me how to solve that problem.

Robert Krawitz                                     <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>      

Tall Clubs International  -- or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project lead for Gimp Print   --

"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to