Hi,

Thx for all the feedback!

My application can function without gimp. I only use gimp to stitch together
and save a larger image as an optional last step.
I think I'll drop gimp and handle it myself, so I can have a single package
for distribution - in addition to open sourcing the whole thing.

Once again, thx for all the feedback, and if anyone is interested, here are
some screenshots from my drawing app:
http://www.conceptualinertia.net/aoakenfo/flash-drawing

Cheers,
Ash


On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Christopher Curtis <ccurt...@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Graeme Gill <grae...@argyllcms.com>
> wrote:
>
> > What counts
> > is dependence.
>
> I think all of your arguments are wrong, but on this point you may be
> right.  I didn't realize that the GIMP is GPLv3 now, which is a very
> different license.  GPLv3 is very fuzzy about linking.  The
> appropriate FAQ then is this:
>
> -----
> The difference between this [communicating at arm's length] and
> “incorporating” the GPL-covered software is partly a matter of
> substance and partly form. The substantive part is this: if the two
> programs are combined so that they become effectively two parts of one
> program, then you can't treat them as two separate programs. So the
> GPL has to cover the whole thing.
> -----
>
> Section 5 of the GPLv3 states only:
>
> -----
> A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent
> works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work,
> and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program,
> in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an
> “aggregate” [...]
> -----
>
> So our legal situation appears to be "not an extension of the work and
> not combined to make a larger program" -- the significance of this
> being under 'Section 5: Modified Source' instead of 'Section 4:
> Verbatim Copies' is not entirely clear to me.
>
>
>
> However, the GIMP LICENSE file states:
>
> ---
> * If you create a program which invokes (or provides) methods within
>  (or for) the GPL GIMP application core through the medium of libgimp
>  or another implementation of the 'procedural database' (pdb) serial
>  protocol, then the GIMP developers' position is that this is a 'mere
>  aggregation' of the program invoking the method and the program
>  implementing the method as per section 2 of the GNU General Public
>  License.
> ---
>
> This does not talk about running the GIMP from the command line
> specifically but does state that you can call into the GIMP core via
> libgimp or any other PDB interface and that is considered by the GIMP
> team as a 'mere aggregation'.  Whether the command line is considered
> an 'implementation of the PDB' is not explicitly stated.
>
>
> *** (Sven, Mitch) ***
>
> This LICENSE text should probably be updated as 'Section 2' of GPLv3
> doesn't talk about aggregations - it's been moved into section 5.  It
> might also be useful to address this issue directly as the GPLv2 is
> generally well understood to allow command line usage as an
> 'aggregation', but GPLv3 seems to muddy this distinction.
>
>
> NAL,
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> Gimp-developer mailing list
> Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
> https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
>
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to