On 12/8/06, Jerry Baker wrote:

I light of the Microsoft/Novell agreement and all of this talk about GPL 3, I was just curious if the gimp team has had any discussions on whether they will be moving to GPL 3 whenever it is completed.

What are the implications? I haven't read about the MS/Novell & GPL 3 thing.

Anthony Ettinger wrote:

On 12/8/06, Jerry Baker wrote:

I light of the Microsoft/Novell agreement and all of this talk about GPL 3, I was just curious if the gimp team has had any discussions on whether they will be moving to GPL 3 whenever it is completed.

What are the implications? I haven't read about the MS/Novell & GPL 3 thing.

There was talk of adding a clause to v3 that would help secure free software against patent trolls in such a way that if Company A promises not to sue Company B for using an infringing algorithm in a GPLed application, that promise has to extend to every user of that application.

In other words, if MS promise not to sue Novell over Mono, implicit in that agreement is the promise not to sue me over Mono, regardless of whether I'm running SuSE or something else.

Personally, I'm in favour of GPLv3 anyway. All it's doing is closing loopholes that enable distributors to avoid granting me one or more of the freedoms I come to expect from free software.

Regards, David

Jerry Baker wrote:

This link has a pretty good overview: http://money.cnn.com/blogs/legalpad/index.html#116360365189479898

Just me, but I couldn't find a reference to GIMP.

On 12/10/06, John Meyer wrote:

Jerry Baker wrote:

This link has a pretty good overview: http://money.cnn.com/blogs/legalpad/index.html#116360365189479898

Just me, but I couldn't find a reference to GIMP.

There isn't one. The terms of the GPL 3 have no direct bearing on GPL 2 software.
As for the option of using GPL 3 for GIMP, I don't know if it's been discussed. As far as I know the distinctions made are unnecessary for GIMP itself; All code that could relate to patents is used by plugins, most often indirectly via a library. Of course, all code relates to patents with the ridiculous current situation. Really I refer to the patents that have a shred or more of plausibility.

On Friday 08 December 2006 22:48, Jerry Baker wrote:

I light of the Microsoft/Novell agreement and all of this talk about GPL 3, I was just curious if the gimp team has had any discussions on whether they will be moving to GPL 3 whenever it is completed.

Hi,

On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 00:37 -0200, Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris wrote:

$head gimp/app/main.c

/* The GIMP -- an image manipulation program * Copyright (C) 1995 Spencer Kimball and Peter Mattis *
* This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or * (at your option) any later version. ^^^^^

This only gives you the right to distribute it under the terms of GPL version 3. As long as the GIMP developers don't decide to change the license to GPL version 3, you could still also distribute it under the terms of GPL version 2 and the changes in version 3 wouldn't apply.

So we might at some point discuss to put new releases under GPL version 3. But I would like to see a final version of the license before we even discuss this. We have enough to do with the 2.4 release right now.

Sven

That's great! I really like that idea :-) operator

David Marrs wrote:

Anthony Ettinger wrote:

On 12/8/06, Jerry Baker wrote:

I light of the Microsoft/Novell agreement and all of this talk about GPL 3, I was just curious if the gimp team has had any discussions on whether they will be moving to GPL 3 whenever it is completed.

What are the implications? I haven't read about the MS/Novell & GPL 3 thing.

There was talk of adding a clause to v3 that would help secure free software against patent trolls in such a way that if Company A promises not to sue Company B for using an infringing algorithm in a GPLed application, that promise has to extend to every user of that application.

In other words, if MS promise not to sue Novell over Mono, implicit in that agreement is the promise not to sue me over Mono, regardless of whether I'm running SuSE or something else.

Personally, I'm in favour of GPLv3 anyway. All it's doing is closing loopholes that enable distributors to avoid granting me one or more of the freedoms I come to expect from free software.

Regards, David