Re: Proposed license policy

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

James Henstridge <james daa com au> writes:

> 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.
> 

We're going to have to declare libgtop not part of the platform
basically (which I think is OK, since it's main use is to implement
gtop and various monitor applets). If the API is stable, we could make
it the first part of a "GPL-only platform" if Martin wants that.

 - Maciej


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