Re: Dia plugins and C++
- From: Steven Lobbezoo <steven la-france net>
- To: dia-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Dia plugins and C++
- Date: 03 May 2002 08:43:45 +0200
Microsoft would consider them under liscence.
You should too, if possible. The shapes library will be one of
the main arguments for DIA (;-(()
le ven 03-05-2002 à 01:32, Lars Clausen a écrit :
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> According to Cyrille Chepelov <cyrille chepelov org>:
>> Le Thu, May 02, 2002, à 10:02:57AM -0500, Lars Clausen a écrit:
>> > Certainly if you change Dia, you must either not redistribute it or
>> > send out the source along with it. Plug-ins I'm not so sure about,
>> > shapes are probably not covered. But IANAL.
>> For plug-ins it's up to "us" (ie, all holders of bits of copyright to
>> the dia code): either we make a Linus Exception (and /all/ agree to do
>> it), or the basic GPL applies and denies this.
> IMHO plugins are GPLed because Dia is GPLed.
Given the way our plugins are heavily integrated, any new plugins would
certainly be GPL'ed. Unless we choose to make an exception, like Linus and
ALSA has done. I think shapes would not be covered, as they a) are not
code, and b) could be easily used in other programs.
Lars Clausen (http://shasta.cs.uiuc.edu/~lrclause)| Hårdgrim of Numenor
"I do not agree with a word that you say, but I |----------------------------
will defend to the death your right to say it." | Where are we going, and
--Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrasing Voltaire | what's with the handbasket?
Dia-list mailing list
Dia-list gnome org
] [Thread Prev