Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 23:28:51 +0200 From: David Neary

I suggest pushing all these bugs, with the exception of bug #83362, to a target other than 1.2.4 (either 1.2.5, 1.2.x or CLOSED with WONTFIX). IMHO 18 months without a bug-fix release on 1.2 is far too long. I would also like to suggest a policy of a point-release every 6 weeks or 2 months on 1.2, just to get fresh bug-fixes out to people.

What we've done with Gimp-print is to release pre-releases periodically, depending upon need (e. g. we're at 4.2.6-pre1 on our stable branch right now). As the changes are accumulated and tested we release a full point release when appropriate. The most recent full point release (4.2.5) was released in January, and I don't anticipate 4.2.6 coming out right away.

It actually wound up being about 5 months from 4.2.0 until 4.2.1, and over 4 months until 4.2.2.

Hi,

David Neary writes:

There are 19 bugs targetted for 1.2.4 in Mozilla...

We should also revisit the seven bugs targetted for 1.2.x.

Some of these bugs have been idle for a couple of years, other are fairly trivial looking, but have not been looked at much. Others have disputed patches, and have been suggested as WONTFIXes.

I agree that adding a 1.2.5 milestone makes sense.

I suggest pushing all these bugs, with the exception of bug #83362, to a target other than 1.2.4 (either 1.2.5, 1.2.x or CLOSED with WONTFIX).

What do you think we should do about #83362 then? (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83362)

Basically, I think we should have 1.2.4 within the next few days. The CVS is rock stable, we've had a decent shepherd in Sven stopping anything resembling unstable code from going in, and I think it's time for a release.

I whole-heartedly agree and unless Yosh speaks up I volunteer to take his job of doing the 1.2.4 release although I really hate to do releases in the 1.2 tree. First because Yosh should do them and second because 'make dist' doesn't work in 1.2.

Sven

On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 01:53:24AM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

David Neary writes:

Basically, I think we should have 1.2.4 within the next few days. The CVS is rock stable, we've had a decent shepherd in Sven stopping anything resembling unstable code from going in, and I think it's time for a release.

I whole-heartedly agree and unless Yosh speaks up I volunteer to take his job of doing the 1.2.4 release although I really hate to do releases in the 1.2 tree. First because Yosh should do them and second because 'make dist' doesn't work in 1.2.

I agree as well, and I can handle the actual release. I don't really have near term time to go through the bugs however.

-Yosh

Hi,

David Neary writes:

I think we should go for 1, send requests to relicence bits of borrowed code to GPL for the important bits, just declare ourselves compliant and relicence for the trivial bits, add SIOD as an exception to our GPL, and if we haven't gotten permission to relicence nlfilter by next Friday, drop it. If we haven't gotten permission to relicence gif, steal some gpl code. Or steal some GPL code now...

Could you try to contact the authors in question?

What's wrong with make dist in 1.2?

It never worked in the plug-ins/perl directory. The way I did the prereleases was to make dist everything but gimp-perl and add gimp-perl to the tarball manually.

Sven

On 11 May 2003, at 14:52, David Neary wrote:

Sven Neumann wrote:

David Neary writes:

The way I see it, there are 3 solutions -

1) Accept that SIOD stays, and if repackagers want to distributee the GIMP as non-free, then so be it. Either copy gif code from another gpl program (say gif2png) or contact opriginal author for re-licencing, or add it as an exception. Contact nlfilter author for relicencing, or drop plug-in. If the contacts don't yielmd answers by the end of this week, we should make a decision.

For the rest of the code, either acknowledge that there is code that needs relicencing, and get onto the people who did it, or declare that all the code that was taken from bsd licenced software was fairly trivial, and re-licence under GPL. For the most part, the latter should do.

2) Continue to delay the release of a bug-fix patch for the gimp until we have a new, fully tested scheme interpreter, and we can get in contact with anyone who ever wrote code for the gimp and didn't realise that the BSD advertising clause was incompatible with the GPL (even if they're now working a humanitarian aid worker in the Peru highlands who haven't looked at a computer since they wrote a gimp plug-in as their final year project).

I think we should go for 1, send requests to relicence bits of borrowed code to GPL for the important bits, just declare ourselves compliant and relicence for the trivial bits, add SIOD as an exception to our GPL, and if we haven't gotten permission to relicence nlfilter by next Friday, drop it. If we haven't gotten permission to relicence gif, steal some gpl code. Or steal some GPL code now...

From an older thread:

In any case, I think that we should split it into 3 bugs, nlfilter, gif and SIOD licencing, and for the rest, just declare everything GPL.

Basically, I think we should have 1.2.4 within the next few days. The CVS is rock stable, we've had a decent shepherd in Sven stopping anything resembling unstable code from going in, and I think it's time for a release.

I whole-heartedly agree and unless Yosh speaks up I volunteer to take his job of doing the 1.2.4 release although I really hate to do releases in the 1.2 tree. First because Yosh should do them and second because 'make dist' doesn't work in 1.2.

What's wrong with make dist in 1.2?

In any case, there are now 8 bugs targetted for 1.2.4

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/buglist.cgi?product=GIMP&bug_status=UNCONFIR MED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=NEEDINFO&bug_status= REOPENED&target_milestone=1.2.4&form_name=query

Of these 8, several have been set from 1.2.x.

Bug #98490 and bug #51164 are up for grabs - very shallow bugs. Who wants to fix them?

It would be nice if someone with HPUX could check if bug #15546 is still alive.

It would also be nice if someone could check that bug #82465 is still reproducible.

Bug #108004 Needs attention before 1.2.4 - once there has been some analysis done, we can see whether it's feasible to have a quick fix, or whether it gets batted back to 1.2.5.

If we want a 1.2.4 release this week, these need to be addressed.

Cheers, Dave.

Aargh! My apologies for an earlier mail, I must have accidentally hit the Send button. :-(

On 11 May 2003, at 14:52, David Neary wrote:

Sven Neumann wrote:

David Neary writes:

The way I see it, there are 3 solutions -

1) Accept that SIOD stays, and if repackagers want to distributee the GIMP as non-free, then so be it. Either copy gif code from another gpl program (say gif2png) or contact opriginal author for re-licencing, or add it as an exception. Contact nlfilter author for relicencing, or drop plug-in. If the contacts don't yielmd answers by the end of this week, we should make a decision.

For the rest of the code, either acknowledge that there is code that needs relicencing, and get onto the people who did it, or declare that all the code that was taken from bsd licenced software was fairly trivial, and re-licence under GPL. For the most part, the latter should do.

2) Continue to delay the release of a bug-fix patch for the gimp until we have a new, fully tested scheme interpreter, and we can get in contact with anyone who ever wrote code for the gimp and didn't realise that the BSD advertising clause was incompatible with the GPL (even if they're now working a humanitarian aid worker in the Peru highlands who haven't looked at a computer since they wrote a gimp plug-in as their final year project).

I think we should go for 1, send requests to relicence bits of borrowed code to GPL for the important bits, just declare ourselves compliant and relicence for the trivial bits, add SIOD as an exception to our GPL, and if we haven't gotten permission to relicence nlfilter by next Friday, drop it. If we haven't gotten permission to relicence gif, steal some gpl code. Or steal some GPL code now...

Did I miss a solution (you said three)?

From an older thread ("Copyrights and licenses", May 2001):

On 29 May 2001, at 14:30, Sven Neumann wrote:

Dave Neary writes:

Sven:

Everything distributed with The GIMP should be GPL, LGPL or a compatible license. Actually we assume that all plug-ins in the GIMP distribution are GPLed.

To my mind (and I may be wrong there), plug-ins are just applications which depend on the GIMP, and an interface provided by it - so they can be licenced under any old licence that you might deign to choose. In much the same way as (say) proprietary Linux applications are just applications which depend on Linux & interfaces it provides (when distributed in binary form anyway).

So if one wanted to release a plug-in as a proprietary application (God knows why you'd want to - I don't believe anyone would pay for a module to a graphics application), I don't see any GPL issues myself. Am I wrong?

You are right. I was speaking about plug-ins/scripts distributed with The GIMP. We have choosen to make libgimp LGPL to allow others to choose different licenses for their plug-ins, but we will refuse to distribute them with The GIMP.

So it would seem the policy was only to allow GPL'ed plug-ins, even if we don't have to.

In any case, I think that we should split it into 3 bugs, nlfilter, gif and SIOD licencing, and for the rest, just declare everything GPL.

Can anyone but the author declare something to be GPL'ed? How does that work?

On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 03:16:17PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

What's wrong with make dist in 1.2?

It never worked in the plug-ins/perl directory. The way I did the prereleases was to make dist everything but gimp-perl and add gimp-perl to the tarball manually.

Hmm... I can guess what goes wrong - the default make dist target will actually create a standalone gimp-perl distribution.

I don't know wether I can overwrite the dist target, but if so, what would I need to do in it?

Would it suffice if the Makefile would simply copy all distribution files into the packaging directory? That should be relatively easy, as the MANIFEST lists (or should list) all files that need packaging.

So.. maybe it's easy to fix (i.e. it might be worth to fix it).

The other alternative would be to do seperate releases (i.e. rip it out).

On 2003-05-11 at 1610.54 +0200, Marc A. Lehmann typed this:

On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 03:16:17PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

What's wrong with make dist in 1.2?

The other alternative would be to do seperate releases (i.e. rip it out).

does this mean separate downloads for people who want current gimp-1.2?

carol

On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 12:04:33PM -0400, Carol Spears wrote:

The other alternative would be to do seperate releases (i.e. rip it out).

does this mean separate downloads for people who want current gimp-1.2?

Well, people who want it usually do sth. like "apt-get upgrade", so it already is a seperate download ;) People who download the source would need two downloads them, of course (or use CPAN).

It has proven to be very difficult to integrate some plug-ins, especially the perl plug-in, since it's not only difficult to integrate it with automake, but plain impossible, since people expect gimp-perl to work with the vendor-supplied perl as well as with gimp, which often is plain impossible.

That's not a problem on linux and freebsd, and I assumed that admins of such broken osses like irix (I am one) would know about these issues, but this seemed to have been a wrong assumption.

Seperating gimp-perl from gimp would help pinpoint problems. If gimp works but gimp-pelr fails to link, this narrows down the area wheer one has to look.

Also, since gimp-perl is now part of every normal distribution the pressure to distribute it with gimp is not as big.

Wether it makes _sense_ to do that in the maintainance branch is a totally different question.

Hi,

writes:

Hmm... I can guess what goes wrong - the default make dist target will actually create a standalone gimp-perl distribution.

exactly

I don't know wether I can overwrite the dist target, but if so, what would I need to do in it?

Would it suffice if the Makefile would simply copy all distribution files into the packaging directory? That should be relatively easy, as the MANIFEST lists (or should list) all files that need packaging.

So.. maybe it's easy to fix (i.e. it might be worth to fix it).

I don't think it is worth fixing it now. Perhaps after the 1.2.4 release.

The other alternative would be to do seperate releases (i.e. rip it out).

That's what we do for 1.3 but I don't think we should change the 1.2 distribution in such a dramatic way.

Sven

On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 08:55:26PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:

So.. maybe it's easy to fix (i.e. it might be worth to fix it).

I don't think it is worth fixing it now. Perhaps after the 1.2.4 release.

Suits me.. :/

If you could, it would be extreemly great if somebody could poke me after 1.2.4, because I'll be bound ot forget it unless pushed.

sön 2003-05-11 klockan 19.28 skrev David Neary:

In addition, since the GPL itself contains an advertising clause, in so far as it obliges a certain header in GPL protected source files, I don't see how it can consider this reason for an incompatibility with the BSD type licence.

The crucial difference is probably that the original BSD license, to my understanding, requires advertising not only in source files, but in all sorts of packaging, both digital and physical. A distributor is required to print the stuff on the box, etc.

I think that we can
keep most of the advertising clauses and still be fully GPL compliant, in word and in spirit.

The BSD/Artistic/Apache type licences all permit relicencing, so why not just relicence to GPL, and keep the advertising clause as originally requested?

It is an additional restriction and thus clearly deemed incompatible with the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD). Additional restrictions are not allowed.

If someone can give me a decent explanation why the advertising clause is a limitation on the liberty to modify the software, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, none of this code will cause me to lose any sleep.

It's still free software. It's just not compatible with the GPL.

Christian

On 2003-05-11 at 2053.53 +0200, Marc A. Lehmann typed this:

On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 12:04:33PM -0400, Carol Spears wrote:

The other alternative would be to do seperate releases (i.e. rip it out).

does this mean separate downloads for people who want current gimp-1.2?

Well, people who want it usually do sth. like "apt-get upgrade", so it already is a seperate download ;) People who download the source would need two downloads them, of course (or use CPAN).

It has proven to be very difficult to integrate some plug-ins, especially the perl plug-in, since it's not only difficult to integrate it with automake, but plain impossible, since people expect gimp-perl to work with the vendor-supplied perl as well as with gimp, which often is plain impossible.

That's not a problem on linux and freebsd, and I assumed that admins of such broken osses like irix (I am one) would know about these issues, but this seemed to have been a wrong assumption.

Seperating gimp-perl from gimp would help pinpoint problems. If gimp works but gimp-pelr fails to link, this narrows down the area wheer one has to look.

Also, since gimp-perl is now part of every normal distribution the pressure to distribute it with gimp is not as big.

Wether it makes _sense_ to do that in the maintainance branch is a totally different question.

please don't do this in the 1.2 branch. i would love to strip the extra stuff from gimp and offer them in a more educational environment (if you need it) but it would be bad to suddenly revert to this old way of getting gimp-perl at what might be the very last release. a mess for the web site also. this would be a web maintenance concern

it would be nice also, if someone would get perl working in the new branch. this is more like one users pipedream, however.

carol

mån 2003-05-12 klockan 09.33 skrev David Neary:

The BSD/Artistic/Apache type licences all permit relicencing, so why not just relicence to GPL, and keep the advertising clause as originally requested?

It is an additional restriction and thus clearly deemed incompatible with the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#OrigBSD). Additional restrictions are not allowed.

To be quite honest, I think this is GNU throwing a hissy fit because BSD people don't agree with them. I believe that any challenge to the licencing of code as GPL because it contains BSD code would fail.

I doubt that, as the revised BSD license without the advertizing clause has been deemed perfectly compatible with the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses). Clearly, it's the advertising clause that causes problems.

If someone can give me a decent explanation why the advertising clause is a limitation on the liberty to modify the software, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, none of this code will cause me to lose any sleep.

It's still free software. It's just not compatible with the GPL.

I find it ridiculous that it's OK with the BSD/Apache/Artistic licence people that anyone can use their code for whatever they want, including relicencing the code, but the GPL (or rather GNU) people refuse to accept the code.

That's the nature of the GPL. It takes measures to enforce some sort of "guaranteed" level of freedom, regardless if you like that or not. As such, it explicitly prohibits the use of any additional restrictions, however they may look like. And as such, any license that imposes additional restrictions, however free that license may otherwise be, is incompatible with the GPL.

The GPL, in spirit, is very clear - GPL licenced code which is modified must be released under the GPL. Great. The BSD type licences are very clear too - do whatever you want, just say where the code came from in a comment. Great. Now, why not include BSD code, do whatever we want with it (basically, relicence it as GPL code), and leave the comment in?

Because the GPL does not allow additional restrictions. If you add additional restrictions, the license conditions are void and the software is not GPL licensed anymore -- and may not even be redistributable at all, as it is the license that permits redistribution.

I don't see a problem with it. And, to be honest, anyone who considers adding a comment to the top of a source file a restriction is being seriously pedantic.

I thought I had already mentioned that this isn't only about source file comments (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html)... To be honest, if you have problems with the original BSD license and GPL incompatibility, I suggest you bring it up on a GNU mailing list. Or any other list with legal experts. This discussion has little to do with GIMP. You're free to cc: me directly on such a discussion, but I don't think the GIMP mailing list is the right forum.

Christian

mån 2003-05-12 klockan 10.54 skrev David Neary:

To be quite honest, I think this is GNU throwing a hissy fit because BSD people don't agree with them. I believe that any challenge to the licencing of code as GPL because it contains BSD code would fail.

I doubt that, as the revised BSD license without the advertizing clause has been deemed perfectly compatible with the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses). Clearly, it's the advertising clause that causes problems.

Ah. That clears things up. Almost all of the questionable code (including the gif code, and the nlfilt code) is not BSD licenced in the old sense, only in the new sense. It does not require a notice on all materials, and resembles more the X11 licence, or the artistic licence V. 2.0 - in which case, it seems to me like we can steamroller through this problem, and do as I suggested (GPL all the files in question, leaving in the comment from the original author).

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to do and what you're trying to accomplish.

For files with BSD license but without the advertizing clause, there is no problem as I see it, and there's no need to change the license. It's already compatible with the GPL and the aggregate is distributable, AFAIK. It's only those files who have BSD licenses with advertizing clauses that needs change, either by the author agreeing to change to the revised BSD license, or any other GPL compatible license.

But a change in license requires the copyright owner's permission, as one of the fundamentals of copyright is that the copyright owner solely determines the conditions (the license). Thus, it seems like overkill to ask, and get permission from, the authors (copyright owners) of all non-GPL files for relicensing to GPL when it may not be needed in all cases.

I don't see a problem with it. And, to be honest, anyone who considers adding a comment to the top of a source file a restriction is being seriously pedantic.

I thought I had already mentioned that this isn't only about source file comments (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html)... To be honest, if you have problems with the original BSD license and GPL incompatibility, I suggest you bring it up on a GNU mailing list. Or any other list with legal experts. This discussion has little to do with GIMP.

As I said above, the code in question doesn't have the 'obnoxious advertising clause' in it. Does this mean that we can relicence it, and stay GPL compliant? As you suggest, I'm going to cc a GNU person here.

You cannot relicense without the author's permission, and I fail to see the need for that anyway if there's no advertizing clause. See above.

You're free to cc: me directly on such a discussion, but I don't think the GIMP mailing list is the right forum.

Unfortunately, since we're talking about the licencing of code distributed with the GIMP, this is still an appropriate forum.

The discussion turned unnecessarily broad in scope and was only loosely connected to the GIMP problem. If you intend to keep it connected to the GIMP problem, I fully agree that keeping it on this list is the best thing to do.

Christian

At 11:28 PM 05/10/2003 +0200, you wrote:

There are 19 bugs targetted for 1.2.4 in Mozilla...

Did you mean to say Bugzilla? Mozilla is the name of a web browser.

Cheers!

Kevin. (http://www.interlog.com/~kcozens/)

Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172 |"What are we going to do today, Borg?" E-mail:kcozens at interlog dot com|"Same thing we always do, Pinkutus: Packet:ve3syb@ve3yra.#con.on.ca.na| Try to assimilate the world!" #include | -Pinkutus & the Borg