On Sat, 2011-09-03 at 23:17 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
> > able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
> > "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)" as its license?
>
> Not an a
Nils Philippsen wrote:
> Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
> able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
> "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)" as its license?
Not an actual answer to your question, but wouldn't the license of the PDF
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 21:24 +0100, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> > > Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be
> > > able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have
> > > "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)" as its license?
> >
> > if you combin
On 14:50 Thu 01 Sep , Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 20:42 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > It seems one always forgets something... well, better this than leaving
> > the stove on.
> >
> > On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:45 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > > Here's the gist (in no parti
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 20:42 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> It seems one always forgets something... well, better this than leaving
> the stove on.
>
> On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:45 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > Here's the gist (in no particular order):
>
> - GIMP 2.7 and later is licensed as "
