Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Bug#148412: gimp1.2: Gimp is notconsistently licensed]

2002-05-30 Thread Anthony DeRobertis

On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 10:36, Raphaël Quinet wrote:

 The libraries used by the plug-ins use the
 LGPL, not the GPL.

I'm glad to hear that! Since the LGPL allows you to link proprietary
code, I imagine that old-style BSD is just fine. So those just need
splitting out at most.

 The only plug-in that contains a significant amount
 of GPL code and GPL-incompatible code is the Script-Fu interpreter.

That will be a mess to clean up. 

 But
 for most plug-ins, it should not be too difficult to contact the authors
 and ask for an exception.

It'd certainly be easiest if they were willing to license under the GPL.
  I don't believe it is. See GPL clause 7: [...]
 
 Well, I'm not sure.  If the GIMP tarball is considered to be a mere
 aggregate of independent software packages (the main application and
 its plug-ins),

I'm not sure how the plugins are used by GIMP. 

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.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [Gimp-developer] [Fwd: Bug#148412: gimp1.2: Gimp is notconsistently licensed]

2002-05-29 Thread Anthony DeRobertis

On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 07:26, Raphaël Quinet 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.

Yep. And a lot of people are depending on the package being GPLd (most
GNU/Linux distros, for example). 


 I don't know if you want to get a copy of the messages and if I should
 also CC them to the debian bug tracker.

Please at least CC [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Also, you might want to set a CC on the bugzilla bug to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Shouldn't result in an ack war.


 Here is a sorted list of files that have copyright notices that are
 not compatible with the GPL (derivatives of the BSD license with the
 so-called advertising clause):

If that's just from sorting my list, then beware that I just did some
greps. I didn't actually read the licenses at the top of every file.

I just grepped for 'supporting'.

 
 The two remaining options are to split the GIMP distribution in two
 packages or to change the license of the distribution:
 - If we split the distribution, we could have one tar archive with GPL
   files (or GPL-compatible files) and another one with the files
   mentioned above.  This would also cover some patent problems for the
   GIF and TIFF plug-ins.  However, it would not like to move Script-Fu
   out of the main GIMP distribution.

This isn't really an option, at least for Debian. Debian couldn't
distribute the split-out files because it'd violate the GPL on the rest
of gimp(!). Same as how Debian doesn't distribute things that link GPL'd
code to OpenSSL.

GIMP would need an exception to the GPL saying this is OK.

Probably not to practical to change the GIMP license.


 - The other option is to change the license for the distribution 
   [...] However, I am not sure that it
   is even possible to have a valid license for the aggregate, while
   still respecting the GPL and the old-style BSD-ish licenses.

I don't believe it is. See GPL clause 7:

  7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License.  If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. [...]

The 'any other reason' in this case would be the old BSD license.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part