On Sunday 21 November 2010 08:48:47 ash oakenfold wrote:
Hi all,
I'm using gimp for some image post-processing (via script-fu and the
command line) and I'd like to include it in the distribution of my Flash
application.
I read the GPL and it says:
*Activities other than copying,
Daniel Hornung wrote:
I am not a lawyer but I think that distributing GIMP along with other non-free
programs should be ok if those other programs just use it through the command
line. Of course you will still have to distribute GIMP under the GPL, which
Hmm. What's the command line got to do
On 11/21/2010 02:03 PM, Graeme Gill wrote:
If there is functional dependence, then the mere aggregation
on the same media escape clause wouldn't seem to apply.
Then everything written for Linux would have to be GPL because it has
functional dependence on GPL code?
Let me try to clarify one thing:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Christopher Curtis ccurt...@gmail.com wrote:
terms of the GPL. Calling GIMP plugins directly gets fuzzier. If
they are scripts, it can be done. If they are compiled code it is
unclear.
I should have said 'If they are
Quoting ash oakenfold conceptual.iner...@gmail.com:
I'm using gimp for some image post-processing (via script-fu and the command
line) and I'd like to include it in the distribution of my Flash
application.
:
:
So, just to be clear, can I distribute gimp and use it to make a batch call
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 22:09 +0300, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
It appears that the plan for servers consolidation was never realized.
And it looks like this is one of the problems behind some ongoing
issues with availability of our sites.
That impression is not entirely correct. While the FTP
Christopher Curtis wrote:
The command line delineates program boundaries. If your application
makes a call to another program, then your application and the
application being called are separate entities. As they are separate
entities, one is not derived from the other.
And I didn't say
Ofnuts wrote:
Then everything written for Linux would have to be GPL because it has
functional dependence on GPL code?
IMI, only if it is shipped as a package, and doesn't fall into
the Linux exception clause. (The Linux exception clause draws
a line between kernel and user processes.)
Graeme
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.
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
