On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 05:50:53PM -0500, Bill Dolson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>       As far as I can determine, for those Plug-ins which are GPLed there
> should be no problem with us distributing them so long as we comply with
> the license requirements.

Yep ;)

> some GIMP modules as the basis of an API emulator, notably plug_in.c and

plug_in.c is not a gimp module... itīs part of the gimp core.

> our non-free software.  I assume this request should ultimately be
> directed to Peter and Spencer but I wish to put it out for consideration
> by the developers.  We would also like to be aware of any changes to the
> plug-in API by the developers.

It is easy: make a list of everybody who has contributed code to that file
and ask them about this ;->

Maybe it's even more difficult and you need to ask all major
contributors. In any case I'm strictly against making it LGPL - YMMV.

>       Why should GIMP offer a plug-in API emulation library?  It would
> enhance the position of GIMP as a viable alternative to Photoshop and
> enhance the atttractiveness of GTK as a toolkit and Linux as an OS.

But the same could be achieved by making the API library GPL, no need
for LGPL. Making it LGPL is only a short way from selling private gimp
versions, and I think it contradicts the rationale of the Lesser General
Public License (LGPL), see also

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html

>       I am very interested in anyone's comments on these issues.

This was my personal but public comment..

-- 
      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |
                                                         |

Reply via email to