On Friday 09 January 2009 21:49:36 Michael Natterer wrote:
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 15:36 +0800, C Wang wrote:
All:
Gimp has bundled babl and gegl since 2.5.0 release, and these two
modules are under LGPLv3 license. According to this diagram
Hi,
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 11:51 +0200, Shlomi Fish wrote:
I would prefer that we do not move to GPLv3. I think GPLv2 or later is bad
enough, due to the fact that the GPLv2 is politically charged, heavily mis-
understood, over-hyped and is incompatible with many perfectly good FOSS
licences
GIMP is GPL and has always been. If you don't like the GPL license, for
whatever reason, then you should not contribute to this project.
Interesting. I knew that GIMP developers must accept GPL as the license
of GIMP, but it is new to me that they are also required like it.
Regards,
Alpar
On Saturday 10 January 2009 16:03:32 David Gowers wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Alpár Jüttner al...@cs.elte.hu wrote:
GIMP is GPL and has always been. If you don't like the GPL license, for
whatever reason, then you should not contribute to this project.
Interesting. I knew
Alpár Jüttner wrote:
GIMP is GPL and has always been. If you don't like the GPL license, for
whatever reason, then you should not contribute to this project.
Interesting. I knew that GIMP developers must accept GPL as the license
of GIMP, but it is new to me that they are also required like
2009/1/10 gg g...@catking.net:
gimp is released under GPL, if someone submits thier work to the project
they understand this and hence chose , of their own free will , that the
work they submit will be distributed in this way. Most of those who
contribute presumably see this as a positive
