Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Bug#148412: gimp1.2: Gimp is not consistentlylicensed]
On Fri, 31 May 2002, Raphaël Quinet wrote: ./plug-ins/common/gif.c (David Koblas) ./plug-ins/common/tiff.c(Patrick J. Naughton) We already knew about at least these and I was told (on #gimp I think) that it was not a problem. Whoever told you that was wrong. The text of both licenses includes: provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting documentation. This is the advertising clause that is not compatible with the GPL. As a result, these files cannot be distributed with the GIMP as they are now. Wouldn't it only have to appear in documentatoin supporting *the gif and tiff plugins themselves*, not GIMP in general? They are, after all, separate programs. Rockwalrus ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Bug#148412: gimp1.2: Gimp is not consistentlylicensed]
On 30 May 2002, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 10:36, Raphaël Quinet wrote: I'm not sure how the plugins are used by GIMP. gimp opens a pipe, spawns the child plugin process, and communicates using a relatively simple protocol. The FSF says http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins also: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCMereAggregation It's very arguable that GIMP and its plugins are effectively one program. Especially since GIMP plugins can only be used from GIMP, integrate into the mnus of GIMP, etc. There are other programs that can run gimp plugins. (well, gimp 1.0 plugins at least) Of course, the question of plugins is almost academic, becuase the copyright holders of GIMP have explicitly stated that they don't consider propriatary plugins to be infringing. If they won't sue over it, who can? (Note that I am NOT suggesting that we shouldn't make GIMP's licensing kosher) Rockwalrus ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Bug#148412: gimp1.2: Gimp is not consistentlylicensed]
On Wed, 29 May 2002, David Neary wrote: Raphaël Quinet wrote: On Tue, 28 May 2002 14:52:53 -0700, Ben Gertzfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Howdy GIMP folks. Here are some points in the licensing of GIMP that need to be addressed. Specifically, there's a lot of code that requires that the authors be mentioned in the documentation, but there is no mention of them anywhere. Hmmm... This is bad, because this is not compatible with the GPL. So we must either stop distributing these files or distribute them in a separate package that is not GPL'ed. Why is giving credit to an author incompatible with the GPL? Because GPL gives the end users the free right to modify and redistribute so long as they obey the GPL license. They can't freely modify it if some of the comments or parts of the documentation can't be deleted or changed because they are required as adverts. Admittedly, it's hard to imagine why you'd urgently need to delete such a thing - but GPL doesn't go into reasons, it just grants users blanket rights to modify. For reasons not to start subtly modifying the GPL, read about all of the horrible things that are happening to Wine, WineX and ReWind! If they'd used an unmodified GPL from start to finish, none of that would have happened. Steve Baker (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail) L3Com/Link Simulation Training (817)619-2466 (Fax) Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.link.com Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sjbaker.org ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Bug#148412: gimp1.2: Gimp is not consistentlylicensed]
On Wed, 29 May 2002, David Neary wrote: Hmmm... This is bad, because this is not compatible with the GPL. So we must either stop distributing these files or distribute them in a separate package that is not GPL'ed. Why is giving credit to an author incompatible with the GPL? It's not the credit-giving (typically, authors usually credit themselves in the file header) but the requirement of prominent advertizing. I'm not a license guru, but I think the GPL explicitly forbids extra license requirements above those specified in the GPL itself. So if you want an advertizing clause, you have to use a modified version of the GPL or combine the code with a modified version of the GPL, thus non-GPL. In fact, when I now searched gnu.org, I found this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCOrigBSD I see no reason why an advertising clause need cause an issue... could someone explain it to me? This is most likely not the proper list for general licensing discussions or questions. I'm sure there are better suited lists for that. Christian ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
