Just to clarify for others reading along, my question is not about linking
GPL and LGPL. It is about cut-and-pasting code from GPL into LGPL during
refactoring. With the benefit of hindsight years later, it seems a
maintainer doing code clean-up should find application code that would
better serve as library functions (refactoring). However, in GIMP such code
can't be moved without getting everyone's permission due to the differing

>> Sven has said in the past that he often checks in
>> patches in his own name in CVS, that GIMP does not keep exact
>>  records of who its authors are.
> Sorry, but that's not true. Whenever I check code into CVS I mention
> the authors explicitely so it's completely possible to track the
> authors by looking at the CVS log.

Pardon me if I misspoke based on recollection. I have now referred back to
your post of December 2, 2002. You said:

[ We often apply patches from people that don't have CVS commit
access. I'd like to see the names of the patch authors in the list of
contributors but it's not trivial to extract them from the ChangeLog
entries. ]

Related question, does GIMP always list the patch author and his contact
info in CVS entries?

> > How do you get permission to move GIMP code from GPL into LGPL?
> Basically we do this so rarely that is hasn't been a problem so far to
> get permissions from everyone who touched the code in question.
> May I ask why you are asking these questions?

For years you have been saying that something that makes GIMP great is that
you have taken the code through a major clean-up process. I wanted to
understand how GIMP does refactoring without being held back by GPL/LGPL
licensing barriers. However, you say above you rarely do refactoring.

Why do you suppose little GIMP application code has migrated into libraries?
Is refactoring unimportant?


[EMAIL PROTECTED]   Hollywood, California   Open source digital motion picture film software

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to