On Friday 09 January 2009 21:49:36 Michael Natterer wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 15:36 +0800, C Wang wrote:
> > 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 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.
> > 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). Do you think it's proper if we keep a internal patch for the time
> > being to apply GPLv3 to Gimp in Solaris.
> As mentioned in other replies, there is nothing in gimp's dependency
> on gegl and babl that would *require* gimp to be GPL3 too.
> However, I have been suggesting moving to GPL3 on irc about 5
> times and just never got around writing a mail to gimp-developer.
> So finally, I hereby suggest to move to GPL3 asap.
> Comments from any developers appreciated.
I would prefer that we do not move to GPLv3. I think GPLv2 or later is bad
enough, due to the fact that the GPLv2 is politically charged, heavily mis-
understood, over-hyped and is incompatible with many perfectly good FOSS
licences (including GPLv3 and LGPLv3). I once read the text of the GPLv2 and
could not understand it.
The GPLv3 is almost twice as long as GPLv2 and contains many additional
restrictions, and is not compatible with GPLv2. My friend told me he is
worried that GPL is a major obstacle for Linux's future in the embedded
market, and that GPLv3 is even worse in this respect. [AGPL]
It is my opinion that in case a strong-copyleft licence is desired, then one
should use the SleepyCat Licence (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepycat_License ) instead of (or in addition
to) the GPL, because it is simpler, easy to understand, compatible with any
other free software licence, and with any version of the GPL and LGPL. (That
put aside, I normally prefer the MIT/X11 Licence for my software).
For more information see:
Note that I'm not going to veto this decision, because all of my contributions
to GIMP are under the MIT/X11 Licence. (Or otherwise with my ownership
disclaimed). But I still think that GPLv2+ is better than GPLv3+ (or at least,
the least of two evils).
Sorry for the inflammatory post.
[AGPL] The Affero GPL aims to do the same for the web-services market. I.e:
> Gimp-developer mailing list
Shlomi Fish http://www.shlomifish.org/
What Makes Software Apps High Quality - http://xrl.us/bkeuk
<mauke> I'm not interested in what you're doing; what are you trying to
<PerlJam> mauke: I'm trying to achieve world peace and this regex is
the last thing standing in my way! ;)
Gimp-developer mailing list