Carol Spears wrote:
can someone explain these license problems in perfectly good
fuzzy american words, complete with adjectives and interjections; perhaps limited to only 3 conjunctions for me?
1) The GPL doesn't allow a GPL and a not-GPL-compatible code unit to be intimately linked together. 2) It might be argued that the basic dependance and interconnection of a not-GPL-compatible plug-in with the GPL GIMP core via libgimp and the wire protocol is intimate enough that the two cannot be considered independent and separate works. (Yeah, really.) 3) This checkin makes our intention clear, as those imposing the license, that 2) is really not a problem.
for some reason, i thought that when gnu put the url to the creative commons page on their site and when the creative commons put gpl in the list of options, that all the license problems would go away.
stripping everything from the libgimp package and offereing
each piece clearly licensed from one of a dozen or so web sites or people who want to distribute cds individually ....
would this end the problems?
_______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer