On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right, until now I haven't cared too much about those things...
Sorry for any inconvenience
No inconvenience. Anyways, I came across as rather rude/insulting in that
last message; I didn't mean to - sorry about that.
later,
Andrew
On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11 Nov, Andrew Kieschnick wrote:
Hmm, that sure as hell looks like an LGPL to me. I seriously doubt
your copy of gimp is different than mine...
LGPL stands for "Lesser GNU Public Licence". Now do me a favour and
count the word lesser
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9 Nov, Andrew Kieschnick wrote:
libgimp and libgimpui are LGPLed, so that isn't a problem.
Really? Not mine
Serious: If it'd be LPGLed it would have had such a header in every
source file and in the COPYING file which isn't the
On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 08:34:32PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Serious: If it'd be LPGLed it would have had such a header in every
source file and in the COPYING file which isn't the case...
There certainly is the COPYING file and the files all refer to the library
GPL, I think that is
On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 10:47:48PM +0200, Tor Lillqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is possible that I decided to use the GPL header because the code
in gimpenv.c was partly moved from gimp proper, which is GPL.
That's bad, so libgimp in cvs is actually GPL ;- My dreams come true ;)
--
Marc Lehmann writes:
On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 10:47:48PM +0200, Tor Lillqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is possible that I decided to use the GPL header because the code
in gimpenv.c was partly moved from gimp proper, which is GPL.
That's bad, so libgimp in cvs is actually GPL
On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 11:20:27PM +0200, Tor Lillqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think gimpenv.c is in any way unique in this sense, probably
many of the other files in libgimp also contain code snippets that
have originally been in some file in the GIMP proper.
It, of course, depends
Except... gimpenv.c...
Well, I have looked at it know, but it should be fairly easy to make a
cleanroom implementation of the functionality in that file only by looking at
the code that calls it. The header is under the LGPL. Would that count? ;-)
Salut, Sven
On 11 Nov, Andrew Kieschnick wrote:
Hmm, that sure as hell looks like an LGPL to me. I seriously doubt
your copy of gimp is different than mine...
LGPL stands for "Lesser GNU Public Licence". Now do me a favour and
count the word lesser in this COPYING file... Then do this again
for the
On 2 Nov, Andrew Kieschnick wrote:
Gimp plug-ins are not linked into the calling program (they are run as
separate processes), so you can call them from any program you like
without violating the GPL.
However you have to link Plug-ins against libgimp and possibly
libgimpui and here
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2 Nov, Andrew Kieschnick wrote:
Gimp plug-ins are not linked into the calling program (they are run as
separate processes), so you can call them from any program you like
without violating the GPL.
However you have to link Plug-ins
I don't think it's appropriate to change the licensing of the
GPL portions of GIMP, even if somehow it could be done. It's
kind of like asking that you GPL your commercial software so
we can include parts of it into GIMP. ;-)
However, it would be neat to see GIMP extended in such a way
that
On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 05:50:53PM -0500, Bill Dolson wrote:
Hi;
I have been developing commercial software for telecine color
correction (film to tape transfer) using GTK on Linux for nearly a year
now. I have a requirement to offer filter plug-ins and wish to explore
using the GIMP
On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 08:19:41PM -0600, Andrew Kieschnick wrote:
Gimp plug-ins are not linked into the calling program (they are run as
separate processes), so you can call them from any program you like
without violating the GPL.
Perhaps, but that is open to interpretation. Corel is
14 matches
Mail list logo
