Re: GNOME following a non-free standard

[Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com>]

Most non-free standards would specifically exclude implementation in
licenses we would consider acceptable, no?

Luis (who thinks writing more proposals about gnome3, as opposed to
going and coding examples of the damn thing, is likely to be a waste
of time, sorry)

On 5/23/05, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller <uraeus gnome org> wrote:
> Hi,
> A practical issue I was wondering about. As you might know there are a
> lot of standards out there while not covered by royalties due to
> patents etc, but the standard specification have a license on it making
> it not possible to share it freely.
> 
> Do we have a de-facto policy on such stuff? Is it ok to base core GNOME
> libraries on implementations of such standards? Lets say as an example
> that I write a library called libstandard which is an implementation of
> such a standard and put it under the LGPL and then I get gtk to depend
> on that library. The code is under a free license, but if anyone but me
> wants to hack on the library they might have a problem doing so due to
> not being able/willing to buy the standard specification and due to that
> not being able to judge easily wether their changes will break anything
> in regards to that specification.
> 
> I guess historically such things have been accepted at some level
> although often in layers under GNOME, but I thought I ask here what
> people think as some of my proposals for GNOME 3 might run into issues
> like this.
> 
> Christian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-hackers mailing list
> gnome-hackers gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers
> 
>
_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers