Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Michael Natterer]

On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 23:37 +0100, Michael Natterer wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 20:49 +0100, Michael Natterer wrote:
> > So finally, I hereby suggest to move to GPL3 asap.
> > 
> > Comments from any developers appreciated.
> 
> The general agreement seems to be to switch to GPLv3 now.
> I have done the change locally and will commit later
> tomorrow, so eek loudly *now* if you have any concerns.

The license change is committed. GIMP is GPLv3 now.

regards,
--mitch


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Michael Natterer]

On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 20:49 +0100, Michael Natterer wrote:
> So finally, I hereby suggest to move to GPL3 asap.
> 
> Comments from any developers appreciated.

The general agreement seems to be to switch to GPLv3 now.
I have done the change locally and will commit later
tomorrow, so eek loudly *now* if you have any concerns.

ciao,
--mitch


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Marcus Heese]

I've just contributed a few lines, too. However, I'm fine with GPLv3, too... I 
was wondering a long time that the GIMP hasn't changed the license yet.

And I hope that the GIMP will stay with GPL in the future, too. Otherwise the 
developers should think about the name again! ;) ... *IMP

best regards
Marcus
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Akkana Peck]

> > > > So finally, I hereby suggest to move to GPL3 asap.
> > > >
> > > > Comments from any developers appreciated.

Liam R E Quin writes:
> I think I only have half a dozen lines of code in there,
> but in case there's any doubt, it's fine here :)

Likewise for me -- I don't have many lines of code in GIMP
but the GIMP team is certainly welcome to relicense anything
of mine as GPLv3.

...Akkana
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Kevin Cozens]

C Wang wrote:
> I understand Gimp uses "GPLV2 or later " statement and thus has no issue
> with GPLv3, but I feel it would be better if we can bump it to GPLv3.

If the developers want to change the licence, they can go right ahead and 
change it. It makes no difference to me which licence is used.

-- 
Cheers!

Kevin.

http://www.ve3syb.ca/   |"What are we going to do today, Borg?"
Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172  |"Same thing we always do, Pinkutus:
 |  Try to assimilate the world!"
#include  |  -Pinkutus & the Borg
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Nathan Summers]

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Michael Natterer  wrote:

> So finally, I hereby suggest to move to GPL3 asap.
>
> Comments from any developers appreciated.

The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned.

Rockwalrus
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Øyvind Kolås]

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Michael Natterer  wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 15:36 +0800, C Wang wrote:
> So finally, I hereby suggest to move to GPL3 asap.
>
> Comments from any developers appreciated.

I am also in favor of a GPL version upgrade (as could probably be
inferred from both GEGL
and babl being licensed under LGPLv3+)

/Øyvind K.
-- 
«The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed»
 -- William Gibson
http://pippin.gimp.org/http://ffii.org/
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Hans Breuer]

At 09.01.2009 20:49, Michael Natterer wrote:
 > [...]
> So finally, I hereby suggest to move to GPL3 asap.
> 
> Comments from any developers appreciated.
> 
Fine with me and thanks for asking.

Hans

 Hans "at" Breuer "dot" Org ---
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to
get along without it.-- Dilbert
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Liam R E Quin]

> > > So finally, I hereby suggest to move to GPL3 asap.
> > >
> > > Comments from any developers appreciated.

I think I only have half a dozen lines of code in there,
but in case there's any doubt, it's fine here :)

My own code is generally dual licensed, with LGPL or
LGPL on the one hand and with the Barefoot Licence on
the other (very broadly like the MIT license but you
have to go without shoes for a day within a week of
first using the software) :-)

Liam

-- 
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Joao S. O. Bueno]

On Friday 09 January 2009, Martin Nordholts wrote:
> Michael Natterer wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 15:36 +0800, C Wang wrote:
> >
> > So finally, I hereby suggest to move to GPL3 asap.
> >
> > Comments from any developers appreciated.
>
> Hi
>
> I agree, it's about time we move to GPLv3 now.

I am all for it as well!
js
-><-

> - Martin
> ___
> Gimp-developer mailing list
> Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
> https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Henk Boom]

2009/1/10 gg :
> 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 thing rather than something
> they "must accept". They re not "required to like" it but presumable
> actually do like it, otherwise it would seem foolish to contribute
> (unless perhaps they are being blackmailed , tortured or otherwise force
> to do so against their will).
>
> So , no, they are not required to like it, they can actually, really
> hate it and still contribute under duress.

I'm afraid some people may take that the wrong way. It is certainly
possible to hate the GPL but love GIMP, and thus still contribute. I
wouldn't consider that to be contribution under duress.

Henk
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[gg]

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 it.
> 
> Regards,
> Alpar
> 

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 thing rather than something
they "must accept". They re not "required to like" it but presumable
actually do like it, otherwise it would seem foolish to contribute
(unless perhaps they are being blackmailed , tortured or otherwise force
to do so against their will).

So , no, they are not required to like it, they can actually, really
hate it and still contribute under duress.

Next(?) time you submit a patch to gimp you may like add a note as to
whether you accept GPL as a good thing or really hate it and accept
being required to like it.

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Shlomi Fish]

On Saturday 10 January 2009 16:03:32 David Gowers wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:10 AM, 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 it.
>
> Do not twist Sven's words.
> All he said was, in effect, 'if the license bothers you, it's not wise
> for you to contribute to this project.' It's not a matter of GIMP
> project policy or requirements, simply a matter of having the personal
> judgment and wisdom to contribute either wholeheartedly or not at all.
>

This is called "all-or-nothing thinking" and is the signature cognitive 
fallacy of Perfectionism, and as documented in "Feeling Good" by David Burns 
(see http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/books-recommends/#feeling_good ) can 
cause depressions and other mood disorders.

It's normally impossible to contribute to something wholeheartedly, so 
according to your logic, I should not contribute to anything at all because 
I'll always have reservations. I contributed to GIMP despite its choice of 
licence, because I like using it, and because it's the best of breed among 
open-source image manipulation programs, and because I think its choice of 
licence does not really affect its use, and because I wanted to make it 
better.

I should note that GIMP is not the only GPLed product I've contributed to.

Would I prefer it if GIMP was under a different licence? Yes, but I'm still 
happily contributing to it despite that. I'm not required to like every aspect 
of a project in order to contribute to it. There are very few if any perfect 
projects out there, so I have to settle with ones that are not perfect but 
still pretty good.

Regards,

Shlomi Fish

>
> David
> ___
> Gimp-developer mailing list
> Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
> https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

-- 
-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
What Makes Software Apps High Quality -  http://xrl.us/bkeuk

I'm not interested in what you're doing; what are you trying to 
   achieve?
  mauke: I'm trying to achieve world peace and this regex is
   the last thing standing in my way! ;)

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[David Gowers]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:10 AM, 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 it.

Do not twist Sven's words.
All he said was, in effect, 'if the license bothers you, it's not wise
for you to contribute to this project.' It's not a matter of GIMP
project policy or requirements, simply a matter of having the personal
judgment and wisdom to contribute either wholeheartedly or not at all.


David
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Alpár Jüttner]

> 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

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Sven Neumann]

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 (including GPLv3 and LGPLv3). I once read the text of the GPLv2 and 
> could not understand it.

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.

> The GPLv3 is almost twice as long as GPLv2 and contains many additional 
> restrictions, and is not compatible with GPLv2. My friend told me he is 
> worried that GPL is a major obstacle for Linux's future in the embedded 
> market, and that GPLv3 is even worse in this respect. [AGPL]

IMO the GPL has worked quite nicely so far, in particular in the
embedded market. I doubt that there would be so good support for Linux
on embedded devices if the GPL would not force everyone to open their
drivers and to make their changes to libraries and tools public. But
then this is becoming rather off-topic and we should concentrate on
discussing the license of GIMP and not what effect the GPL might have on
other projects.


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Shlomi Fish]

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
> > 
> > , the Gimp license has already been converted to GPLv3.
> >
> > I understand Gimp uses "GPLV2 or later " statement and thus has no issue
> > with GPLv3, but I feel it would be better if we can bump it to GPLv3.
> >
> > Also, we didn't update the Gimp since 2.4.x release here in Solaris due
> > to the license issue, and I was asked to use GPLv3 if we want to using
> > latest Gimp release ( or I need to remove all babl and gegl related
> > code). Do you think it's proper if we keep a internal patch for the time
> > being to apply GPLv3 to Gimp in Solaris.
>
> As mentioned in other replies, there is nothing in gimp's dependency
> on gegl and babl that would *require* gimp to be GPL3 too.
>
> However, I have been suggesting moving to GPL3 on irc about 5
> times and just never got around writing a mail to gimp-developer.
>
> So finally, I hereby suggest to move to GPL3 asap.
>
> Comments from any developers appreciated.
>

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 (including GPLv3 and LGPLv3). I once read the text of the GPLv2 and 
could not understand it.

The GPLv3 is almost twice as long as GPLv2 and contains many additional 
restrictions, and is not compatible with GPLv2. My friend told me he is 
worried that GPL is a major obstacle for Linux's future in the embedded 
market, and that GPLv3 is even worse in this respect. [AGPL]

It is my opinion that in case a strong-copyleft licence is desired, then one 
should use the SleepyCat Licence ( 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepycat_License ) instead of (or in addition 
to) the GPL, because it is simpler, easy to understand, compatible with any 
other free software licence, and with any version of the GPL and LGPL. (That 
put aside, I normally prefer the MIT/X11 Licence for my software).

For more information see:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hackers-il/message/5009

Note that I'm not going to veto this decision, because all of my contributions 
to GIMP are under the MIT/X11 Licence. (Or otherwise with my ownership 
disclaimed). But I still think that GPLv2+ is better than GPLv3+ (or at least, 
the least of two evils). 

Sorry for the inflammatory post.

Regards,

Shlomi Fish

[AGPL] The Affero GPL aims to do the same for the web-services market. I.e: 
kill it.

> ciao,
> --mitch
>
>
> ___
> Gimp-developer mailing list
> Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
> https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

-- 
-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
What Makes Software Apps High Quality -  http://xrl.us/bkeuk

I'm not interested in what you're doing; what are you trying to 
   achieve?
  mauke: I'm trying to achieve world peace and this regex is
   the last thing standing in my way! ;)

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Michael Natterer]

On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 17:10 -0500,
saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com wrote:
> The licensing specified in the files app/gui/ige-mac-menu.[ch] appears  
> to be LGPL2.1 with no "or later" clause. LGPLv2.1 permits, without any  
> further authorization, changing the code's license to later GPL  
> versions (but apparently not subsequent LGPL versions); so the  
> copyright holder's permission isn't strictly necessary to relicense  
> the code as GPL3, but it would seem appropriate and courteous to check  
> if they wouldn't rather add the "or later" option to their LGPLv2.1  
> code (obviating the need to re-license as GPL3). The copyright holder  
> of those files is Imendio; perhaps Andreas Nilsson could address this  
> (otherwise it should be possible to make contact with the copyright  
> holders through their developer forums @  
> http://developer.imendio.com/forum).

I'm co-author of this file and the other author is Richard Hult. I'm
sure he is fine with having the files in a GPLv3 project, but I will
ask him anyway.

ciao,
--mitch


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 17:10 -0500,
saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com wrote:

> The licensing specified in the files app/gui/ige-mac-menu.[ch] appears  
> to be LGPL2.1 with no "or later" clause. LGPLv2.1 permits, without any  
> further authorization, changing the code's license to later GPL  
> versions (but apparently not subsequent LGPL versions); so the  
> copyright holder's permission isn't strictly necessary to relicense  
> the code as GPL3, but it would seem appropriate and courteous to check  
> if they wouldn't rather add the "or later" option to their LGPLv2.1  
> code (obviating the need to re-license as GPL3). 

That code is supposed to end up in GTK+ anyways. It's just copied here
until that is the case. But I guess Mitch can just ask his colleagues if
they agree with the license change.


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[saulgoode]

Quoting Michael Natterer :

> So finally, I hereby suggest to move to GPL3 asap.
>
> Comments from any developers appreciated.

Personally, I would welcome such a change.

The licensing specified in the files app/gui/ige-mac-menu.[ch] appears  
to be LGPL2.1 with no "or later" clause. LGPLv2.1 permits, without any  
further authorization, changing the code's license to later GPL  
versions (but apparently not subsequent LGPL versions); so the  
copyright holder's permission isn't strictly necessary to relicense  
the code as GPL3, but it would seem appropriate and courteous to check  
if they wouldn't rather add the "or later" option to their LGPLv2.1  
code (obviating the need to re-license as GPL3). The copyright holder  
of those files is Imendio; perhaps Andreas Nilsson could address this  
(otherwise it should be possible to make contact with the copyright  
holders through their developer forums @  
http://developer.imendio.com/forum).

The intltool-merge.in and intltool-update.in files are GPLv2-only  
(intltool-extract.in includes the "or later" option). I don't know if  
they would need to be re-licensed. I suspect not as they are just  
build scripts and aren't technically part of GIMP's source (this could  
be wrong).

I have not uncovered any other files that were not offering the "or  
later" option (I will do a more thorough search this weekend).

Regards.

___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Martin Nordholts]

Michael Natterer wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 15:36 +0800, C Wang wrote:
>   
> So finally, I hereby suggest to move to GPL3 asap.
>
> Comments from any developers appreciated.
>   

Hi

I agree, it's about time we move to GPLv3 now.

- Martin
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Michael Natterer]

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
> 
> , the Gimp license has already been converted to GPLv3.
> 
> I understand Gimp uses "GPLV2 or later " statement and thus has no issue
> with GPLv3, but I feel it would be better if we can bump it to GPLv3.
> 
> Also, we didn't update the Gimp since 2.4.x release here in Solaris due
> to the license issue, and I was asked to use GPLv3 if we want to using
> latest Gimp release ( or I need to remove all babl and gegl related code).
> Do you think it's proper if we keep a internal patch for the time being
> to apply GPLv3 to Gimp in Solaris.

As mentioned in other replies, there is nothing in gimp's dependency
on gegl and babl that would *require* gimp to be GPL3 too.

However, I have been suggesting moving to GPL3 on irc about 5
times and just never got around writing a mail to gimp-developer.

So finally, I hereby suggest to move to GPL3 asap.

Comments from any developers appreciated.

ciao,
--mitch


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 15:36 +0800, C Wang wrote:

> Gimp has bundled babl and gegl since 2.5.0 release

GIMP does not bundle babl or gegl, it just links to them as it links to
dozens of other libraries.

> According to this diagram
> 
> , the Gimp license has already been converted to GPLv3.

Have another look at the diagram then. According to what I understand
from looking at it, there's no problem with GIMP using "GPLV2 or later".

Anyway, we want to change GIMP to GPL v3 or later anyway. We just did
not get to discussing this properly on this list and actually doing the
switch. Perhaps it's a good idea to have this discussion now. Is there
anyone objecting against changing the license to "GPL v3 or later" (and
"LGPL v3 or later" for libgimp*) ?

BTW, the name of the program is "GNU Image Manipulation Program", or
short "GIMP". Please don't spell it "Gimp".


Sven


___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[saulgoode]

Quoting saulgo...@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com:
> I don't see why you'd have to remove BABL and GEGL code; they are
> libraries and to my understanding there is nothing wrong with linking
> GPL2 code to LGPL3 libraries.

The above should have been: ... nothing wrong with linking "GPL2 or  
later" code to LGPL3 libraries.



___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Re: [Gimp-developer] Gimp license

[saulgoode]

Quoting C Wang :

> All:
> Gimp has bundled babl and gegl since 2.5.0 release, and these two
> modules are under LGPLv3 license. According to this diagram
> 
> , the Gimp license has already been converted to GPLv3.

I disagree. Since GIMP is only linking to the LGPL3 BABL and GEGL  
libraries, there is no requirement for nor implication that GIMP  
licensing has changed from "GPL2 or later".

> I understand Gimp uses "GPLV2 or later " statement and thus has no issue
> with GPLv3, but I feel it would be better if we can bump it to GPLv3.

FWIW, I have no objection to GIMP upgrading to "GPLv3 or later",  
though that is a decision for the project leaders. My cursory search  
of the GIMP source didn't reveal any instances of "GPL2 only" code --  
though there are a couple of "LGPL2.1 only" files and some of the  
intltools scripts seem to be "GPL2 only".

> Also, we didn't update the Gimp since 2.4.x release here in Solaris due
> to the license issue, and I was asked to use GPLv3 if we want to using
> latest Gimp release ( or I need to remove all babl and gegl related code).

I don't see why you'd have to remove BABL and GEGL code; they are  
libraries and to my understanding there is nothing wrong with linking  
GPL2 code to LGPL3 libraries.

> Do you think it's proper if we keep a internal patch for the time being
> to apply GPLv3 to Gimp in Solaris.

That is your right. But perhaps the better solution would be to keep  
your release under GPL2 for the present. Is it that you have patches  
being contributed for which the authors objected to their code being  
licensed under GPL2 or later?




___
Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer