RSS/Atom feed Twitter
Site is read-only, email is disabled

License question

This discussion is connected to the gimp-developer-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.

This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.

2 of 2 messages available
Toggle history

Please log in to manage your subscriptions.

License question gimp-devel@gl00on.net 10 Jun 14:19
  License question Marc) (A.) (Lehmann 10 Jun 15:30
gimp-devel@gl00on.net
2003-06-10 14:19:00 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

License question

Hi everyone,

first of all, I'm not sure if this should go here or to -users, but I think it's more appropriate here.

I recently came across http://www.ftgimp.com/, which seems to sell an enhanced version of the GIMP (called "FT Gimp") for 19.95 to 29.95 USD. Looking around the site, I haven't found any pointers to the fact that it is based on the GIMP (outside of a button at the bottom of the main page that links to http://www.gimp.org/), and neither is there a mention that GIMP is licensed under the GPL. In fact, the site includes a copyright notice that says:

"FTGimp: Copyright (C) 2002-2003 FlamingText.com. All rights reserved. No reproduction allowed without permission."

I can't help but wonder about this whole thing; it smells fishy to me, but I'm not a licensing expert (nor a GIMP expert :)), so I'd be happy to hear your comments.

Thanks.

Marc) (A.) (Lehmann
2003-06-10 15:30:17 UTC (almost 21 years ago)

License question

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 02:19:00PM +0200, gimp-devel@gl00on.net wrote:

I recently came across http://www.ftgimp.com/, which seems to sell an enhanced version of the GIMP (called "FT Gimp") for 19.95 to 29.95 USD.

which is fine, of course, except that I don't see any enhancements ;)

based on the GIMP (outside of a button at the bottom of the main page that links to http://www.gimp.org/)

Well, a button is more than the minimum requirement...

"FTGimp: Copyright (C) 2002-2003 FlamingText.com. All rights reserved. No reproduction allowed without permission."

That might indeed provoke the wrong impression to some people. However, I do interpret this as meaning the site copyright, not the program, which is ok.

To find out wether something really is fishy you'd need to look at what you get and wether all the requirements set by the GPL are fulfilled ;)

(Personally I'd say it's a rip-off, nothing else ;)