Subject: FVWM: Re: Window Manager Icons 0.1.1

From: Julian Gilbey <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 03:23:45 +0100 (BST)

I haven't yet had a chance to look at it, but firstly, well done, and
secondly: have you been able to include all of the icons from the
present FVWM and FVWM 95 packages?

Thanks,

   Julian

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. [email-masked]
             Debian GNU/Linux Developer.  [email-masked]
       -*- Finger [email-masked] for my PGP public key. -*-
--
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 [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Ralf Fassel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:44:17 +0200 (MDT)

* [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.

Best regards
R'
-- 
? Why doesn't DOS ever say "EXCELLENT command or filename" ?

---

From: Michael Han <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:00:50 -0700

Previously...
>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.
-- 
[email-masked]
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 [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Dominik Vogt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:07:08 +0200

On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 11:00:50AM -0700, [email-masked] wrote:
> 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

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, [email-masked]
--
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 [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked].

---

From: Julian Gilbey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:45:28 +0100 (BST)

> intentional, I'd propose to use the LGPL instead.

I wonder whether we want this?  If a proprietary package wants to use
these free icons, they will either have to ensure that their package
does not actually depend upon the icons, but the icons in wm-icons are
just a nice addition to the proprietary package which a user can
choose to add on should they wish, or they will have to release their
package under the GPL or similar free license.

The LGPL (currently being renamed "The Lesser General Public Licence")
was only created for such things as libc which would not have been
used at all if they couldn't be used by non-free software.  I do not
see the same argument at all for the wm-icons distribution; after all,
the FVWM distribution will probably (if it hasn't already) remove all
of the icons from itself, and instead recommend wm-icons.  There: you
already have a nice user base.  If, however, FVWM had a license which
said "no non-free software may be run under this window manager", then
(almost) noone would use FVWM, which would be ludicrous and
self-defeating.  The cases are not similar.

So I strongly propose remaining with the full GPL.

   Julian