Hi,

In August I asked a similar question (LGPL vs BSD) and got a lengthy discussion going, which helped me a lot in understanding the difference.

Now, what is the difference between the Modified LGPL (as used in FPC and Lazarus) compared to MPL.

Don't they really mean the same thing.

* Code modifications must be made public
* Commercial software may be created without releasing source when linking to libraries. Again, not sure about static linking in MPL?
* plus point of MPL is you don't get confusion between GPL and LGPL. Many just see GPL and stay away...

Let's not open a can of worms here, the truth is we can't change the license anyhow, there are too many pieces by too many contributors who would have to agree with the change in the first place.

IMHO point the people who need more info to FAQ and be done with it.

Ales

Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:

I let the other points to people knowing it better to answer.

* plus point of MPL is you don't get confusion between GPL and LGPL.

- When FPC was started in 1993 there were basically two licenses: BSD and (L)GPL so the choice was easy.

Many just see GPL and stay away...

Don't make the common fault about OSS. Not users are important but developers. And (L)GPL is much more developer friendly. Further, most big OSS projects I know being completly "hobbyist" driven are (L)GPL. The big projects using something else have either academic or commercial roots or are too new so they use their own license.

Op Tue, 26 Dec 2006, schreef Graeme Geldenhuys:

Yes, but, LGPL is compatible with GPL, MPL is not. So, if the RTL would have been MPL, we would not have been able to GPL the compiler. There is one exception in the GPL, and that is linking to non-GPL system libraries, the RTL can perhaps be considered a system library. It would still be doable though.

Still, the MPL is totally unusable because of one clause: "This license shall be governed by California law provisions". As all FPC developers except Carl are in Europe, it is doubtfull wether Californian law can apply to us at all, but for certain is that it wouldn't be very wise to move all legal issues to a place far, far away.

Daniël

Btw, see
http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g4 some discussion on why one would choose for example GPL + Classpath exception (an amendment text from the Classpath project) vs LGPL. These two seem equivalent, but the 1st means that one can include in some Linux distros that require GPL

----------------
George Birbilis ()
Computer & Informatics Engineer
Microsoft MVP J# for 2004-2006
Borland "Spirit of Delphi"
3D, QuickTime, QTVR, Java, Delphi,
ActiveX, .NET components, Robotics
http://www.kagi.com/birbilis
http://birbilis.spaces.live.com

_____

avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com> : Outbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 0662-1, 24/12/2006
Tested on: 26/12/2006 1:56:21 ??
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.

which distros would those be? given that glibc is lgpl i can't imagine that resistance to it is exactly common in the distro environment ;)

Okay, maybe I posted this question in the wrong mailing list or I left out a vital part in my post. ;-)

I didn't mean for a change in FPC's licensing! I was referring to my own projects and also the possibility of including that code in FPC or Lazarus (only shipping with, not compiled in).

I thought I would ask in the devel mailing list as you guys are in the same boat I am (writing software using FPC), and might know more about the different licenses available.

If there is a more appropriate mailing list for this question, please let me know.
Sorry about the confusion.

I'm looking for a relaxed license that allows you to use my code in opensource or commercial software, but any changes must be made public. I'm not interested in static or dynamic linking to the library/code, etc... The developer must be able to use the code as they see fit, as long as any change to my code/library are made public.

Modified LGPL (as used in Lazarus and FPC) seem to be what I want, I was just wondering what the major difference is between the Modified LGPL and MPL. Oh and I don't live in the USA but rather the RSA (South Africa).

Graeme.

I was talking about developers. Many have the misconception that GPL and LGPL state that all code must be made available, which scares commercial users away.
They see LGPL and think GPL. I guess it all boils down to the lack of knowing what each license means/says.

I remember reading it (didn't mention which distros though I think) at an interview of the so-called "father of Java" (who was fanatically against Java getting opensourced before, but now tries to explain why they opensourced it [I'm in favor of the opensourcing of it btw, since I'll be able to port stuff of Java2 class libraries to .NET/J# when they finish the opensourcing process])

----------------
George Birbilis ()
Computer & Informatics Engineer
Microsoft MVP J# for 2004-2006
Borland "Spirit of Delphi"
3D, QuickTime, QTVR, Java, Delphi,
ActiveX, .NET components, Robotics
http://www.kagi.com/birbilis
http://birbilis.spaces.live.com

_____

avast! Antivirus <http://www.avast.com> : Outbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 0662-1, 24/12/2006
Tested on: 26/12/2006 4:10:25 ??
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.

Modified LGPL (as used in Lazarus and FPC) seem to be what I want, I was just wondering what the major difference is between the Modified LGPL and MPL. Oh and I don't live in the USA but rather the RSA (South Africa).

Note that MPL has an escape clause exactly for this dilemma. (the GPL linking) There is an option to MPL or optionally use LGPL at the users choice.

So _IF_ you choose MPL, enable the LGPL dual licensing. If the code is appopriate for Lazarus/FPC inclusion this will happen via that way. (like e.g. the Jedi headers, or the libtar before)

Graeme Geldenhuys wrote

Now, what is the difference between the Modified LGPL (as used in FPC and Lazarus) compared to MPL.

My objection to the MPL is that it's unreadable for me. The sentences are too complicated and long. The LGPL is quite well readable (for a legal text anyway, IMHO).

Micha