On 11/22/10 11:04, Michael Schumacher wrote:
>> Von: Christopher Curtis<ccurt...@gmail.com>
>
>> *** (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.
>
> At the moment I'm not even sure if GIMP should be licensed under GPLv3 
> without a much better understanding of the license.
> For example, the fact that it is now impossible to use GPLv2-only libraries 
> in plug-in wasn't considered at all. It's not such much the fact that we 
> can't use them anymore, rather the problem of no one even thinking about it 
> when we changed the license version to v3.
>
> I have contacted the Freedom Task Force of the FSF in order to get help, and 
> they requested more details. Unfortunately my spare time (or the lack 
> thereof) didn't allow me to write a reply yet.
>
>
> I'd be glad to learn about any additional side-effects of a GPLv3-licensed 
> GIMP (note that libgimp* is licensed under LGPLv3) that may surprise us - but 
> please base them on actual FSF information and not mere speculation.
>
>
> Regards,
> Michael

I did suggest caution when the licence upgrade issue was raised 
originally. It seems a bit late to start considering whether it has any 
"side-effects" now. Maybe someone should have read it.

/gg

_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to