Previously...
>* [Mikhael Goikhman]
>| I would like to hear your comments about the project and its first
>| public release in particular.
>
>I think it would be a good idea to use the LGPL instead of the GPL for
>this package. Using the GPL would prohibit the use of it in
>proprietary packages as I understand the GPL. Unless this is
>intentional, I'd propose to use the LGPL instead.
Is anyone really even clear how XPMs could be construed as being
"source" or "binary"? XPMs in their native format *are* source (or it
looks suspiciously similar to C to me). But one never "compiles"
XPMs... There's just the image XPMs, in whatever form you want to
consider them to be in, "source" or "binary". Haven't looked too
carefully at GPL/LGPL lately but I'm pretty sure it distinguishes
between binaries and sources, and I have no idea which you'd consider
XPMs to be.
--
mikehan_at_best.com
Hamsters cannot fly
- The collected wisdom of Bart Simpson
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
Received on Mon Apr 12 1999 - 13:05:38 BST