Re: Proposed license policy

[James Henstridge <james daa com au>]

On 4 Dec 2000, Havoc Pennington wrote:

> I'd say it's probably fine to have a distinct and clearly-marked "GPL
> devel platform." Though I'm not sure we have candidates for inclusion
> in that yet; the only GPL library is GAL, and it seems like "shared
> code between the office apps" rather than a general-purpose
> lib. (Don't mean that to be a bad thing, I just don't see how it's
> different from libgnomeui if the widgets are general-purpose widgets.)

Libgtop is another example of a GPL library in gnome.  In both these
cases, the library does not provide functionality required to create gnome
applications.  I would have a problem if someone was using a GPL'd library
as a way for collecting royalties from people wanting to use part of the
gnome development platform.

James.


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