Re: Proposed license policy

[Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org>]

Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com> writes:

> 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.

I don't want this for the moment (GNOME 1.4). Its API is stable and frozen,
but since I'm doing a larger rewrite for 2.0 I don't want to encourage
anyone to develop against the old one.

-- 
Martin Baulig
martin gnome org (private)
baulig suse de (work)

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