Re: Proposed license policy
- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>
- To: Miguel de Icaza <miguel helixcode com>
- Cc: James Henstridge <james daa com au>, Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, Ian Peters <itp helixcode com>, Ettore Perazzoli <ettore helixcode com>, gnome-hackers gnome org
- Subject: Re: Proposed license policy
- Date: 08 Dec 2000 00:13:11 -0800
Miguel de Icaza <miguel helixcode com> writes:
> > 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.
> DB3 is a GPL-like library that is dual licensed. Nice library, very
> hard to duplicate, has created a real business, pays the bills of the
> authors, promotes development of free software.
> I guess I do not agree with ostracizing libraries because someone
> chooses to GPL it for whatever reasons they have.
Whee, just when I thought we had consensus.
I don't think anyone is trying to ostracize GPL libraries per
se. We're just suggesting that the GNOME development platform, the
essential parts that are needed to write GNOME applications, should be
accessible to both free and proprietary applications.
We can also have a separate GPL platform of non-essential add-ons (as
several people suggested), but I think most people agree it's
important to keep that clearly separate from the core platform.
] [Thread Prev