Sven Neumann wrote:

I'd like to announce the availability of version 1.3.0 of the GIMP Plug-In Template at

ftp://ftp.gimp.org/pub/gimp/plugin-template/

This is a development release targetted at plug-in developers that want to create a plug-in for the development version of The GIMP. You will not need this if you are developing a simple plug-in that can be implemented in a single C file but it should get you started if you want to hack on something more complex. It features all the nice things a good GIMP Plug-In should have:

Nice work! Is there any chance that this could be licensed BSD/X11-style to encourage its adoption as the base for non-GPL plugins too?

Regards,
--Adam

On 06 Mar 2003 18:47:12 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:

"Adam D. Moss" writes:

Nice work! Is there any chance that this could be licensed BSD/X11-style to encourage its adoption as the base for non-GPL plugins too?

Mitch and me don't see any problem to relicense gimp-plugin-template. Should perhaps even be something w/o an advertising clause?!

I'd suggest dual licensing:
1 - "old-style" BSD with advertising clause 2 - GPL or LGPL

If we only have the first option, it would not be possible to write GPLed plug-ins using this template. This is probably not a good thing. Providing both options is better because it lets people select what they prefer.

If you agree on the dual licensing option, I can write some patches tomorrow.

-Raphaël

Sven Neumann wrote:

Nice work! Is there any chance that this could be licensed BSD/X11-style to encourage its adoption as the base for non-GPL plugins too?

Mitch and me don't see any problem to relicense gimp-plugin-template.

Cool.

Should perhaps even be something w/o an advertising clause?!

Oh definitely.

If someone wants to prepare patches, I'll take care of applying them and will make 1.2.1 and 1.3.1 releases with the changed license.

I'll get right on it then.

Raphaël Quinet wrote:

I'd suggest dual licensing:
1 - "old-style" BSD with advertising clause 2 - GPL or LGPL

I was in the process of moving the code to the following XFree-style license if that's okay. I don't see the utility in dual-licensing since either of the above can trivially subsume the proposed license (apologies for mozilla deciding to kill the formatting):

Copyright (C) 200X XXXXXX XXXXXXX (the "Author"). All Rights Reserved.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is fur- nished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FIT-
NESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CON- NECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Except as contained in this notice, the name of the Author of the Software shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from the Author.

On 06 Mar 2003 18:47:12 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:

[...]

And I replied some silly things...

Hmmm... Looks like I misread Sven's message. I thought that you wanted the option of having a license _with_ advertising clause. I did not see the "o" in "w/o". Silly me! So of course there is no need for dual licensing in this case. Forget what I said in my previous message. Doh!

-Raphaël