On Sunday 21 November 2010 08:48:47 ash oakenfold wrote:

Hi all,

I'm using gimp for some image post-processing (via script-fu and the command line) and I'd like to include it in the distribution of my Flash application.

I read the GPL and it says:

*"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not **covered by this License; they are outside its scope.**"*

And on wikipedia it says:

*"The mere act of communicating with other programs does not, by itself, require all software to be GPL; nor does distributing GPL software with non-GPL software."*

So, just to be clear, can I distribute gimp and use it to make a batch call from my program? Or does this violate the GPL?

Hi Ash,
I am not a lawyer but I think that distributing GIMP along with other non-free programs should be ok if those other programs just use it through the command line. Of course you will still have to distribute GIMP under the GPL, which means that you will have to inform the recipients about the license and their right, and you will have to make sure (as stated in the GPL) that they can get the source code in an appropriate way.

HTH, Daniel

Daniel Hornung wrote:

I am not a lawyer but I think that distributing GIMP along with other non-free programs should be ok if those other programs just use it through the command line. Of course you will still have to distribute GIMP under the GPL, which

Hmm. What's the command line got to do with it ? If a distribution ("package") has functionality that depends on GPL code, then that package is derived from GPL code, so must meet the GPL licensing conditions. The mechanism is irrelevant, the dependence is what counts. A non-GPL program that invokes a GPL program via any mechanism sounds a lot like is has some dependence on the GPL code. If there is functional dependence, then the "mere aggregation on the same media" escape clause wouldn't seem to apply.

Graeme Gill.

On 11/21/2010 02:03 PM, Graeme Gill wrote:

If there is functional dependence, then the "mere aggregation on the same media" escape clause wouldn't seem to apply.

Then everything written for Linux would have to be GPL because it has functional dependence on GPL code?

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Graeme Gill wrote:

Daniel Hornung wrote:

I am not a lawyer but I think that distributing GIMP along with other non-free programs should be ok if those other programs just use it through the command line.

Let me try to clarify one thing:

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Christopher Curtis wrote:

terms of the GPL.

Quoting ash oakenfold :

I'm using gimp for some image post-processing (via script-fu and the command line) and I'd like to include it in the distribution of my Flash application.
:
:
So, just to be clear, can I distribute gimp and use it to make a batch call from my program? Or does this violate the GPL?

The provisions of the explicit exemption stated in the LICENSE file[1] strongly suggest that your use case would not violate the terms of GIMP's licensing. If interfacing through either libgimp or the Script-fu server mechanisms doesn't mandate GPL licensing of your code, then why should command line invocation of that same functionality demand it?

I would offer the following recommendations to further ensure compliance:

* Your program should still work -- and provide significant functionality -- even if GIMP is not available.

* The GIMP supplied by you needs to be provided separately from your software. Specifically, the recipient needs to be able to use, make, and share copies of GIMP even though they may not be permitted to do so with your software (do not supply GIMP plus your software within the same ZIP file or tarball).

* The GIMP supplied by you needs to be fully functional as a standalone application.

* Ideally, provide an _unmodified_ version of GIMP. If you do make modifications to the GIMP you provide, your modifications should not be exclusively useful to your project (please consider submitting your improvements upstream).

* The user needs to be able to substitute their own version of GIMP for the one provided by you. If you are providing a modified version of GIMP, your program's use of GIMP must not rely upon the modifications you've made.

* You must, of course, satisfy all distribution terms required by the GPL for the GIMP software you are providing. It is important that you ensure the source code is available upon request, and that recipients are apprised of this availability.

Finally, keep in mind that this advice (in addition to bearing no legal authority) is not necessarily applicable to other GPLed projects. GIMP's explicit exemption provision would be considered by many people to be an exception to the normal interpretation of the GPL's scope, not merely a clarification of an amibiguity. The GIMP project is within their rights to provide such an exception, but one should not conclude that other GPLed projects offer the same type of exception.

[1] http://git.gnome.org/browse/gimp/tree/LICENSE

Christopher Curtis wrote:

The command line delineates program boundaries. If your application makes a call to another program, then your application and the application being called are separate entities. As they are separate entities, one is not derived from the other.

And I didn't say that one was derived from the other. Go back and re-read what I said.

It is dependent on it, yes, but dependence is not derivation.

The distribution/package that contains the GPL code is (by default) derived from it. The package contains it, so the package is derived from it.

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the

Ofnuts wrote:

Then everything written for Linux would have to be GPL because it has functional dependence on GPL code?

IMI, only if it is shipped as a package, and doesn't fall into the Linux exception clause. (The Linux exception clause draws a line between kernel and user processes.)

Graeme Gill.

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Graeme Gill wrote:

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the

Christopher Curtis wrote:

[...] (and the non
GPL code having functionality that is dependent on GPL code seems a pretty strong hint I think, that this is not mere aggregation),

The GNU project is very explicit that your interpretation does not match theirs:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation

I think it does reasonably well, and the passage you quote is deliberately evasive about technical details. I think all the talk about the technical mechanisms is irrelevant. What counts is dependence. If I take your package and remove the GPL code, does the package still perform the primary function that is claimed for it ? If the answer is no, then the package is (IMO) clearly derived from the GPL code, and therefore must meet the GPL licensing conditions. (This is ignoring GPL code with extra exception clauses, like Linux etc.)

Graeme Gill.

On 11/21/10 19:06, saulgoode@flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com wrote:

* The user needs to be able to substitute their own version of GIMP for the one provided by you. If you are providing a modified version of GIMP, your program's use of GIMP must not rely upon the modifications you've made.

I don't see where you get this part from. Anyone is free to make any modifications as long as they release them under a compatible licence and provide full source code etc.

If their other code works with the modified gimp in a GPL way where do you see the requirement to make if function with some / any other version of gimp that may be available previously , now or in the future. This does not seem to make sense.

This would be equivalent of saying no one (including the gimp project) could make a script that only worked with recent gimp features.

I'm not aware that GPL gives the project special rights to modify the source above the rights of anyone else.

Please clarify if I've missed something.

/gg/

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Graeme Gill wrote:

What counts
is dependence.

I think all of your arguments are wrong, but on this point you may be right. I didn't realize that the GIMP is GPLv3 now, which is a very different license. GPLv3 is very fuzzy about linking. The appropriate FAQ then is this:

----- The difference between this [communicating at arm's length] and

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:27 PM, ash oakenfold wrote:

My application can function without gimp. I only use gimp to stitch together and save a larger image as an optional last step.

If your needs really are this simple, ImageMagick is a pretty powerful tool released under a BSD-like license that may suit your needs.

You may also want to consider using GEGL for your application. There is a plan afoot to use GEGL as the backend for GIMP compositing, and I'm sure everyone would appreciate as much 'real-world' testing of this library as possible - assuming flash allows that level of integration.

Chris

Von: Christopher Curtis

*** (Sven, Mitch) ***

This LICENSE text should probably be updated as 'Section 2' of GPLv3 doesn't talk about aggregations - it's been moved into section 5. It might also be useful to address this issue directly as the GPLv2 is generally well understood to allow command line usage as an 'aggregation', but GPLv3 seems to muddy this distinction.

At the moment I'm not even sure if GIMP should be licensed under GPLv3 without a much better understanding of the license. For example, the fact that it is now impossible to use GPLv2-only libraries in plug-in wasn't considered at all. It's not such much the fact that we can't use them anymore, rather the problem of no one even thinking about it when we changed the license version to v3.

I have contacted the Freedom Task Force of the FSF in order to get help, and they requested more details. Unfortunately my spare time (or the lack thereof) didn't allow me to write a reply yet.

I'd be glad to learn about any additional side-effects of a GPLv3-licensed GIMP (note that libgimp* is licensed under LGPLv3) that may surprise us - but please base them on actual FSF information and not mere speculation.

Regards, Michael

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Michael Schumacher wrote:

Von: Christopher Curtis

*** (Sven, Mitch) ***

This LICENSE text should probably be updated as 'Section 2' of GPLv3 doesn't talk about aggregations - it's been moved into section 5.  It might also be useful to address this issue directly as the GPLv2 is generally well understood to allow command line usage as an 'aggregation', but GPLv3 seems to muddy this distinction.

At the moment I'm not even sure if GIMP should be licensed under GPLv3 without a much better understanding of the license. For example, the fact that it is now impossible to use GPLv2-only libraries in plug-in wasn't considered at all. It's not such much the fact that we can't use them anymore, rather the problem of no one even thinking about it when we changed the license version to v3.

I have contacted the Freedom Task Force of the FSF in order to get help, and they requested more details. Unfortunately my spare time (or the lack thereof) didn't allow me to write a reply yet.

I'd be glad to learn about any additional side-effects of a GPLv3-licensed GIMP (note that libgimp* is licensed under LGPLv3) that may surprise us - but please base them on actual FSF information and not mere speculation.

Since a long time ago, we had an exception of the license for plug-ins in a sense that GIMP plug-ins can be non GPL. If you as much as take a look at the LICENSE file provided in the tree, it is at the second and third paragraphs.

Therefore, there should be no problem in suiong GPLv2 or any other license for libraries linking to plug-ins.

js ->

Regards,
Michael
--
Neu: GMX De-Mail - Einfach wie E-Mail, sicher wie ein Brief! Jetzt De-Mail-Adresse reservieren: http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/demail _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list
Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

On 11/22/10 11:04, Michael Schumacher wrote:

Von: Christopher Curtis

*** (Sven, Mitch) ***

This LICENSE text should probably be updated as 'Section 2' of GPLv3 doesn't talk about aggregations - it's been moved into section 5. It might also be useful to address this issue directly as the GPLv2 is generally well understood to allow command line usage as an 'aggregation', but GPLv3 seems to muddy this distinction.

At the moment I'm not even sure if GIMP should be licensed under GPLv3 without a much better understanding of the license. For example, the fact that it is now impossible to use GPLv2-only libraries in plug-in wasn't considered at all. It's not such much the fact that we can't use them anymore, rather the problem of no one even thinking about it when we changed the license version to v3.

I have contacted the Freedom Task Force of the FSF in order to get help, and they requested more details. Unfortunately my spare time (or the lack thereof) didn't allow me to write a reply yet.

I'd be glad to learn about any additional side-effects of a GPLv3-licensed GIMP (note that libgimp* is licensed under LGPLv3) that may surprise us - but please base them on actual FSF information and not mere speculation.

Regards, Michael

I did suggest caution when the licence upgrade issue was raised originally. It seems a bit late to start considering whether it has any "side-effects" now. Maybe someone should have read it.

/gg

Quoting Michael Schumacher :

At the moment I'm not even sure if GIMP should be licensed under GPLv3 without a much better understanding of the license. For example, the fact that it is now impossible to use GPLv2-only libraries in plug-in wasn't considered at all. It's not such much the fact that we can't use them anymore, rather the problem of no one even thinking about it when we changed the license version to v3.

If a plug-in were to link to a GPLv2-only library, that plug-in (having to be licensed as GPLv2-only) would not have been acceptable for incorporation into the GIMP project. To my understanding, it has always been (at least since GIMP 0.56) required that code contributed to GIMP be licensed in a manner compatible with "GPLv2 (or later)" licensing terms. If GIMP had included GPLv2-only code then GIMP would no longer have been distributable under "GPLv2 (or later)" terms.

At the time the licensing change to GPLv3 was originally proposed, I spent a couple of hours inspecting the GIMP source for any instances of GPLv2-only licensing and could not find any. As one should expect, all GPLed code in GIMP offered the option to use a later version. If any such code were present, or if GIMP had any GPLv2-only dependencies, there would have already existed a licensing conflict with GIMP's "GPLv2 (or later)" licensing, independent any consideration of GPLv3.

Since GPLv2-only plug-ins have never been an option for inclusion in the GIMP project -- and since third-party plug-ins are permitted to be licensed under GPLv2-only terms (and thus link with GPLv2-only libraries) -- I do not see that GIMP switching to GPLv3 poses any new problems in this regard.