On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 11:00:50AM -0700, mikehan_at_best.com wrote:
> 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...
Nope, that's wrong. I have seen C code that simply #includes XPM
files and passes the defined structures to other functions (I assume
from the xpm library).
> 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.
Neither do I. Perhaps we could ask the author(s) of the xpm package?
Bye
Dominik ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt, Hewlett-Packard GmbH, Dept. BVS
Herrenberger Str.130, 71034 Boeblingen, Germany
phone: 07031/14-4596, fax: 07031/14-3883, dominik_vogt_at_hp.com
--
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 - 13:13:29 BST