On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 11:51 +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:

> 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.

GIMP is GPL and has always been. If you don't like the GPL license, for
whatever reason, then you should not contribute to this project.

> 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]

IMO the GPL has worked quite nicely so far, in particular in the
embedded market. I doubt that there would be so good support for Linux
on embedded devices if the GPL would not force everyone to open their
drivers and to make their changes to libraries and tools public. But
then this is becoming rather off-topic and we should concentrate on
discussing the license of GIMP and not what effect the GPL might have on
other projects.


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to