Quoting C Wang <chris.w...@sun.com>: > All: > Gimp has bundled babl and gegl since 2.5.0 release, and these two > modules are under LGPLv3 license. According to this diagram > <http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#matrix-skip-target> > , the Gimp license has already been converted to GPLv3.
I disagree. Since GIMP is only linking to the LGPL3 BABL and GEGL libraries, there is no requirement for nor implication that GIMP licensing has changed from "GPL2 or later". > I understand Gimp uses "GPLV2 or later " statement and thus has no issue > with GPLv3, but I feel it would be better if we can bump it to GPLv3. FWIW, I have no objection to GIMP upgrading to "GPLv3 or later", though that is a decision for the project leaders. My cursory search of the GIMP source didn't reveal any instances of "GPL2 only" code -- though there are a couple of "LGPL2.1 only" files and some of the intltools scripts seem to be "GPL2 only". > Also, we didn't update the Gimp since 2.4.x release here in Solaris due > to the license issue, and I was asked to use GPLv3 if we want to using > latest Gimp release ( or I need to remove all babl and gegl related code). I don't see why you'd have to remove BABL and GEGL code; they are libraries and to my understanding there is nothing wrong with linking GPL2 code to LGPL3 libraries. > Do you think it's proper if we keep a internal patch for the time being > to apply GPLv3 to Gimp in Solaris. That is your right. But perhaps the better solution would be to keep your release under GPL2 for the present. Is it that you have patches being contributed for which the authors objected to their code being licensed under GPL2 or later? _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
