On Sat, 2011-09-03 at 23:17 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Nils Philippsen wrote:
Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3) as its license?
Not an actual
Nils Philippsen wrote:
Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3) as its license?
Not an actual answer to your question, but wouldn't the license of the PDF
It seems one always forgets something... well, better this than leaving
the stove on.
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:45 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
Here's the gist (in no particular order):
- GIMP 2.7 and later is licensed as GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ (executables,
libraries)
- This makes it incompatible
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 20:42 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
It seems one always forgets something... well, better this than leaving
the stove on.
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:45 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
Here's the gist (in no particular order):
- GIMP 2.7 and later is licensed as GPLv3+
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 21:24 +0100, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3) as its license?
if you combine them in a
