Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 which is LPGLed... So I think I may add a necessary an LPGL header to it BTW: Can somebody please replace the COPYING file by an updated version to avoid further confusion? -- Servus, Daniel
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 changed. Interesting, indeed > LGPL version 2 is the GNU Library General Public License. > LGPL version 2.1 is the Lesser GNU Public License. > The COPYING file in libgimp is the LGPL, version 2. > The COPYING file in gtk+-1.2.6 is also the LGPL, version 2. That's obviously not true for the COPYING file in the gtk subdir, it's the "lesser" version > Its becoming obvious to me that you just don't know what you're > talking about. Right, until now I haven't cared too much about those things... Sorry for any inconvenience -- Servus, Daniel
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 in this COPYING file... Then do this again > for the COPYING file in your Gtk distribution in the subdir gtk... 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 changed. LGPL version 2 is the GNU Library General Public License. LGPL version 2.1 is the Lesser GNU Public License. The COPYING file in libgimp is the LGPL, version 2. The COPYING file in gtk+-1.2.6 is also the LGPL, version 2. Its becoming obvious to me that you just don't know what you're talking about. later, Andrew
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 COPYING file in your Gtk distribution in the subdir gtk... -- Servus, Daniel
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 from gimp proper, which is GPL. Looking at CVS history and the ChangeLog, the derivative parts in question from the app (from gimprc.c) have only been touched by Spencer, Peter, and me. I don't have any problems with LGPLing, and I suspect S&P won't either (since they were fine about changing libgimp to LGPL originally), but it'd be go to check with them to be rigourous. > > That's bad, so libgimp in cvs is actually GPL ;-> My dreams come true ;) > > 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. Hmm.. I really can't think of any obvious cases of this? -Yosh
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
> > 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
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 on how large the code snippets are (this topic was seen on gcc quote often). Also the original author's can do what they please. In general, this is bound to lead to problems. As long as all the gimp developers (and these are many) do not really care this is no problem. But I am quite sure this practise will bite the project at one time. It only needs some semi-core developer (doing larger patches than a few lines) who gets angry, and we are in the situation where libgimp is effectively GPL (as it is now). In practise this will not be much of a problem. Non-gpl-compliant plug-ins are rare, and I do not care wether these drift into illegality or not. (Wether dynamic linking is linking in the GPL sense is also not at all clear!). But I think we should aim for more safe grounds. (I will henceforth consider libgimp GPL :). -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 ;-> My dreams come true ;) 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. --tml
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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) was something I did on purpose, or just thoughtless copy-pasting. 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. --tml
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 the LGPL, without asking all the > contributors. Looking at the ChangeLog it's only three or four people who > have ever changed that file, so this shouldn't be difficult. Isn't creating a GPL'd file in an LGPL'd library against the LGPL in the first place? I don't see how you can put arbitrary licenses into a project as a contributor and mix'n'match to your tastes... In short: can't you just change this, as it is an error, and a violation of the license in the first place, rather than asking each contributor to agree to a license under which the original code was provided to them anyway? --glyph
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 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 the LGPL, without asking all the contributors. Looking at the ChangeLog it's only three or four people who have ever changed that file, so this shouldn't be difficult. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 case... beelzebub:~$ head ~/gimp/libgimp/COPYING GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991 Copyright (C) 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. [This is the first released version of the library GPL. It is numbered 2 because it goes with version 2 of the ordinary GPL.] beelzebub:~$ Hmm, that sure as hell looks like an LGPL to me. I seriously doubt your copy of gimp is different than mine... later, Andrew
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 against libgimp and possibly > libgimpui and here you've got your problem. If you just have a Plug-in > which computes everything internally and then just uses the standard way > of exchanging data with GIMP you'll be on the safe side... libgimp and libgimpui are LGPLed, so that isn't a problem. later, Andrew
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 you've got your problem. If you just have a Plug-in which computes everything internally and then just uses the standard way of exchanging data with GIMP you'll be on the safe side... -- Servus, Daniel
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 violating the GPL. > > Perhaps, but that is open to interpretation. Corel is currently talking with > the author of dpkg which is called as a program (through exec) from a non-GPL > program. He sees this as a GPL violation. > > Ian > It can also be interpreted that using dlopen() to run GPL code is not necessarily a violation. It boils down to the complexity of the interaction between the plugin and the application. If the application just tells the plugin to "load and start" then it's not necessarily a violation even if you are loading it as a shared library. At least that's the impression I got from RMS when I asked him about that. -- Shawn T. Amundson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research and Developmenthttp://www.eventloop.com/ EventLoop, Inc. http://www.snorfle.net/ "The assumption that the universe looks the same in every direction is clearly not true in reality." - Stephen Hawking
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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. > > Perhaps, but that is open to interpretation. Corel is currently talking with > the author of dpkg which is called as a program (through exec) from a non-GPL > program. He sees this as a GPL violation. I don't see how the GPL can be interpreted that way. What section is this believed to be violating? later, Andrew Kieschnick
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 currently talking with the author of dpkg which is called as a program (through exec) from a non-GPL program. He sees this as a GPL violation. Ian -- Ian McKellar | Email: yakk(a)yakk.net | Web: http://www.yakk.net/ Prefix: +61 8 | Fax/VoiceMail: 9265 0821 | Home: 9389 9162 | Work: 9380 3688
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 filter plug-ins and wish to explore > > using the GIMP Plug-ins. I did an exploratory post asking if anyone was > > aware of using GIMP plug-ins in non-GIMP apps last week but did not get > > a reply. I have been working on this some more and wish to pursue this > > further. > > 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. > > My understanding of the GPL is that you would not be able to link GPLed GIMP > plug-ins with non-GPL software. 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. later, Andrew
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 Plug-ins. I did an exploratory post asking if anyone was > aware of using GIMP plug-ins in non-GIMP apps last week but did not get > a reply. I have been working on this some more and wish to pursue this > further. > 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. My understanding of the GPL is that you would not be able to link GPLed GIMP plug-ins with non-GPL software. Anyway, if you're writing commercial software surely you should have the resources to develop your own filter plug-ins. Someone developing a free equivalent to your program would of course be able to use GIMP plug-ins. The GPL is a nice way of balancing the financial resources of proprietary developers. Ian PS: Have you checked the license on ImageMagick - it might do what you want. -- Ian McKellar | Email: yakk(a)yakk.net | Web: http://www.yakk.net/ Prefix: +61 8 | Fax/VoiceMail: 9265 0821 | Home: 9389 9162 | Work: 9380 3688
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 basis of an API emulator, notably plug_in.c and plug_in.c is not a gimp module... it´s part of the gimp core. > our non-free software. I assume this request should ultimately be > directed to Peter and Spencer but I wish to put it out for consideration > by the developers. We would also like to be aware of any changes to the > plug-in API by the developers. It is easy: make a list of everybody who has contributed code to that file and ask them about this ;-> Maybe it's even more difficult and you need to ask all major contributors. In any case I'm strictly against making it LGPL - YMMV. > Why should GIMP offer a plug-in API emulation library? It would > enhance the position of GIMP as a viable alternative to Photoshop and > enhance the atttractiveness of GTK as a toolkit and Linux as an OS. But the same could be achieved by making the API library GPL, no need for LGPL. Making it LGPL is only a short way from selling private gimp versions, and I think it contradicts the rationale of the Lesser General Public License (LGPL), see also http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html > I am very interested in anyone's comments on these issues. This was my personal but public comment.. -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | |
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 them. The main > question would be how you get image data into GIMP fast enough. > You would probably want to extend GIMP to be able to access > your data as you have it stored or access portions of it from > your program, via a pipe or something. (I guess, basically > make GIMP act like a plugin itself to any other application.) > > -Shawn
Re: GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 you could hide the main UI (like to toolbox), but still load images and run interactive plugins on them. The main question would be how you get image data into GIMP fast enough. You would probably want to extend GIMP to be able to access your data as you have it stored or access portions of it from your program, via a pipe or something. (I guess, basically make GIMP act like a plugin itself to any other application.) -Shawn 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 Plug-ins. I did an exploratory post asking if anyone was > aware of using GIMP plug-ins in non-GIMP apps last week but did not get > a reply. I have been working on this some more and wish to pursue this > further. > 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. We would, however, like to be able to use > some GIMP modules as the basis of an API emulator, notably plug_in.c and > perhaps others once we become more familiar with the problem. This is > strictly a convenience to avoid us having to write the "GIMP" side of > the API from scratch. For us to do so would require the license on > these modules changed from GPL to LGPL so that they could be linked into > our non-free software. I assume this request should ultimately be > directed to Peter and Spencer but I wish to put it out for consideration > by the developers. We would also like to be aware of any changes to the > plug-in API by the developers. > By our understanding, if the GIMP modules required for the plug-in API > could be LGPLed than we could use them as the basis for a library which > could be used by any app which wanted to use GIMP plug-ins. This library > would, of course, remain freely available and we would be pleased to > contribute to that work. > For our purposes we only need basic filter plug-ins but that's at least > a start. > Why should GIMP offer a plug-in API emulation library? It would > enhance the position of GIMP as a viable alternative to Photoshop and > enhance the atttractiveness of GTK as a toolkit and Linux as an OS. To > the best of my knowledge we were the only company showing a product at > the last SIGGRAPH implemented with GTK on Linux. (I would love to hear > of others so I could tell my boss!). Several digital effects and > compositing systems have implemented Photoshop Plugin API emulators so > they can run Photoshop Plugins including Commotion and Digital Fusion. > If we are to have a competitive product we need to be able to provide a > plug-in API, ideally one with a good body of existing plug-ins. > I am very interested in anyone's comments on these issues. > Regards; > Bill Dolson -- Shawn T. Amundson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Research and Developmenthttp://www.eventloop.com/ EventLoop, Inc. http://www.snorfle.net/ "The assumption that the universe looks the same in every direction is clearly not true in reality." - Stephen Hawking
GIMP Plug-ins for other Apps? - LGPL for some GIMP modules?
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 of using GIMP plug-ins in non-GIMP apps last week but did not get a reply. I have been working on this some more and wish to pursue this further. 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. We would, however, like to be able to use some GIMP modules as the basis of an API emulator, notably plug_in.c and perhaps others once we become more familiar with the problem. This is strictly a convenience to avoid us having to write the "GIMP" side of the API from scratch. For us to do so would require the license on these modules changed from GPL to LGPL so that they could be linked into our non-free software. I assume this request should ultimately be directed to Peter and Spencer but I wish to put it out for consideration by the developers. We would also like to be aware of any changes to the plug-in API by the developers. By our understanding, if the GIMP modules required for the plug-in API could be LGPLed than we could use them as the basis for a library which could be used by any app which wanted to use GIMP plug-ins. This library would, of course, remain freely available and we would be pleased to contribute to that work. For our purposes we only need basic filter plug-ins but that's at least a start. Why should GIMP offer a plug-in API emulation library? It would enhance the position of GIMP as a viable alternative to Photoshop and enhance the atttractiveness of GTK as a toolkit and Linux as an OS. To the best of my knowledge we were the only company showing a product at the last SIGGRAPH implemented with GTK on Linux. (I would love to hear of others so I could tell my boss!). Several digital effects and compositing systems have implemented Photoshop Plugin API emulators so they can run Photoshop Plugins including Commotion and Digital Fusion. If we are to have a competitive product we need to be able to provide a plug-in API, ideally one with a good body of existing plug-ins. I am very interested in anyone's comments on these issues. Regards; Bill Dolson
