Re: Proposed license policy

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

Ian Peters <itp helixcode com> writes:

> On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 02:15:03PM -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > 
> > I meant what Owen and Havoc said, that it's OK to have GPL libraries,
> > but they cannot be declared an official part of the GNOME development
> > platform. They are consigned to permanent internal use only status
> > unless the license changes. I hope people agree that is sensible.
> 
> I'm sure we're not actually disagreeing here, but to clarify...

I'm not sure either.

> GPL libraries can surely be used by other free software projects, and
> that doesn't always mean internal.
> 

They could be if those projects want to live on the edge and use
internal use libraries and which are not part of the GNOME platform
(which means we don't guarantee API/ABI stability for instance).

I wouldn't like to see anyone encouraging outside projects to use
non-platform libraries, but we certainly shouldn't attempt to stop
people from doing so.

Basically we don't want to declare the GNOME platform off-limits to
proprietary software, or even in some sense to make proprietary
software a second-class citizen, because the strategic cost of driving
away developers would be greater than the benefit of giving free apps
an advantage. Or at least I though this was what the GNOME community
had agreed to.

BTW, I hope people don't see this as an anti-GAL plot or anything (I
detect a hint of that in some messages). I think GAL is a great idea,
especially with the assignment policy removed, and it's wonderful to
have a mechanism for GNOME apps to share code without having to put it
in gnome-libs. I've suggested that we at Eazel put some of the code
we've developped for Nautilus that is generally useful in GAL (though
I can't say if that will actually happen).

 - Maciej


_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers