Re: Intent to package: "birthday"
Andy Mortimer wrote:
>
> Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 13, 1999 at 04:04:42PM +0000, Andy Mortimer wrote:
> > > I still haven't quite decided what license -- GPL or Artistic,
> > > probably -- to release it under, but it will definitely be DFSG-free.
> >
> > Use GPL and we can wrap it Gtk. Or do what perl does, offer both licenses!
> > You don't have to use a single license only.
>
> OK, I've probably missed something here -- I don't tend to follow the
> licensing discussions too closely! -- but just out of interest, why
> does giving it a non-GPL license prevent it being wrapped with Gtk?
> AFAICT (not knowing if Gtk has a funny license, I assume it's GPL) the
> Artistic should be "compatible" with the GPL, no?
>
This caught me wrong the first time (for different reasons), but I
didn't have to time to respond. If GTK were GPLed, it would be
imcompatable with the Artistic license and most other licenses out
there. GTK is LGPL'ed. It can be dynamically linked with any code you
want, including completely propriatery stuff. Microsoft Office for Linux
could use GTK. So it doesn't matter what license he uses, he can use
GTK.
--
David Starner - OSU student - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
If you want a real optimist, look up Ray Bradbury. Guy's nuts.
He actually likes people. -David Brin
Reply to: