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?

Quoting saulgoode@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.

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

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

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

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.

Hi,

On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 17:10 -0500, saulgoode@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

On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 17:10 -0500, saulgoode@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

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

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 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 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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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