On 06 Mar 2003 18:47:12 +0100, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
And I replied some silly things...
Hmmm... Looks like I misread Sven's message. I thought that you wanted the
option of having a license _with_ advertising clause. I did not see the
"o" in "w/o". Silly me! So of co
Raphaël Quinet wrote:
I'd suggest dual licensing:
1 - "old-style" BSD with advertising clause
2 - GPL or LGPL
I was in the process of moving the code to the following XFree-style
license if that's okay. I don't see the utility in dual-licensing
since either of the above can trivially subsume the p
Sven Neumann wrote:
Nice work! Is there any chance that this could be licensed
BSD/X11-style to encourage its adoption as the base for non-GPL
plugins too?
Mitch and me don't see any problem to relicense gimp-plugin-template.
Cool.
Should perhaps even be something w/o an advertising clause?!
Oh d
On 06 Mar 2003 18:47:12 +0100, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Adam D. Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Nice work! Is there any chance that this could be licensed
> > BSD/X11-style to encourage its adoption as the base for non-GPL
> > plugins too?
>
> Mitch and me don't see any pr
Hi,
"Adam D. Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nice work! Is there any chance that this could be licensed
> BSD/X11-style to encourage its adoption as the base for non-GPL
> plugins too?
Mitch and me don't see any problem to relicense gimp-plugin-template.
Should perhaps even be something w/o
