From: Jon M. Taylor <taylorj@ecs.csus.edu>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:20:11 -0700 (PDT)

Re: License settlement once for all. [Re: See you later alligator.]

On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, Emmanuel Marty wrote:

> WHS wrote:
> 
> > Hartmut Niemann wrote:
> > 
> > > <personal attacks>
> > > Dear Wouter! If we can't agree on a license at all, the BSD crowd
> > > won't get ANYTHING. If we agree on something *GPLed, they *can*, if they
> > > want, use it. BTW: Is there an indication that they are
> > > all as stubborn as you?
> > 
> > Hartmut, I'm not actually stubborn in the manner you and probably others
> > think. I always disliked the simplistic and incorrect view that many
> > Linux'ers (and I'm a Linux user, don't forget this) have of other
> > licenses than *GPL. So, I enter these discussions exactly BECAUSE Andy
> > wanted GGI on BSD.
> 
> Ok, ok, ok, everyone, please stop.
> 
> Wouter, please, you are an excellent programmer and we need your
> help. I want to see ggi on *BSD too, and your experience with it is
> necessary. Please ?
> 
> We know you aren't advocating BSD just for the heck of starting an
> heated discussion. And your point of view is appreciated. Licensing
> is really an hot topic, I guess.

	Unfortunately |-<.

> Ok, I'll make a proposition. This is what Andy and I proposed
> several months ago, but apparently it never made it through.
> 
> Okay, here goes:
> 
> 1) Linux KGI/kgicon is GPL
> 
> 2) BSD KGI equivalent is BSD
> 
> 3) KGI drivers are multi-licensed :
>    GPL for linux
>    BSD for *BSD
>    ..
>    others will follow.
> 
> 4) libggi is (stays) LGPL.

	GOOD!  This makes sense!!!
 
> > But it seems noone else is interested anymore in getting GGI everywhere,
> 
> I am. Really.

	I am too, but quite frankly that is NOT the most important thing in
the world.  I see the Win32 port as almost infinitely more important than the
*BSD ports.  I have grown quite disenchanted with the BSD folks over the past
year or so, due to the streak of preachy anti-GPL fanaticism that has taken
over that community.
 
> > You can consider all patches I sent to the list and/or to Andy as public
> > domain, and decide on the license. I'm not going to the IRC meeting. I'm
> > quitting programming for a while.
> 
> Wouter, we do listen to your opinion; It would be silly to give up just
> because of an heated discussion. *shrug* for all I know, it's partly my
> fault for letting the issue disgress to, my apologies for that.
> 
> OK - *everyone who contributed code* give your opinion about the parts
> relevant to your code *only*. That should gather only "yes" votes. Then
> we'll change the license information in the sources accordingly, and make
> sure they are valid (ie. including what needs to be, etc. as pointed out
> by someone).

	Exactly what you proposed above.

> I personally don't care what license my code is under, as long as it isn't
> used for mass murdering or something :) We all code for the pleasure of
> it, don't we. There is enough with work, lovelife and such, to worry about,
> for having to bite eachother's nose about something like that. Don't you
> think ?

	No.  I belive in the GPL and what it stands for.  I do not care about
what license others choose to use or multi-licensing my code under GPL and
BSD, as long as it does not interfere with *my* choice of license.  As long
as I can LGPL my LibGGI code and GPL my KGI code, I am happy.  Anything else
and I will fork GGI myself if no one else does.  I have invested way too much
of my life in GGI to see it harmed now because of licensing issues.

Jon

---
'Cloning and the reprogramming of DNA is the first serious step in 
becoming one with God.'
	- Scientist G. Richard Seed