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 11 Nov, Tor Lillqvist 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.
Hm, the file I created was done on my own or cutted from gimp-libs
On 12 Nov, Andrew Kieschnick wrote:
> LGPL previously stood for "GNU Library General Public License". It was
> changed to be the "Lesser GNU Public License" at some point not all
> that long ago.
> Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html if you'd like to
> know why its name was chan
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
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 Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 11:20:27PM +0200, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
> 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 fro
>
> 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 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, dep
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 actu
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:
> There certainly is the COPYING file and the files all refer to the library
> GPL, I think that is clear enough!
> Except... gimpenv.c...
Hmm. It was I who originally created that file, and I don't remember
if putting in a header referring to the GPL (and not the LGPL) w
On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> There certainly is the COPYING file and the files all refer to the library
> GPL, I think that is clear enough!
>
> Except... gimpenv.c...
>
> This is a serious problem. I'm not sure wether one can easily change
> the header in the file to refer to th
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, 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'
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 case...
--
Servus,
Daniel
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
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 y
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 07:05:18AM +0800, Ian McKellar wrote:
> 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 vio
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Ian McKellar wrote:
> 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.
>
>
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 c
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Ian McKellar wrote:
> 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
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 G
On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 05:50:53PM -0500, Bill Dolson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as I can determine, for those Plug-ins which are GPLed there
> should be no problem with us distributing them so long as we comply with
> the license requirements.
Yep ;)
> some GIMP modules as the ba
There's always good ol' script-fu :-)
-Dave
http://www.flamingtext.com/
On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Shawn T . Amundson wrote:
> However, it would be neat to see GIMP extended in such a way
> that you could hide the main UI (like to toolbox), but still
> load images and run interactive plugins on the
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 yo
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 Plug-ins. I did an exploratory post asking if anyone was
aware o
26 matches
Mail list logo
