Sign in Join

Live chat for Free Pascal, Lazarus, Delphi and every Pascal programmer.

Mailing lists / fpc-other / 2014-02

Re: Announces & License question

1 message · 1 person ·

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

Read-only archive. Use j and k to move between messages.

Jonas Maebe

[moving to FPC-other]

Marco van de Voort wrote 15 lines
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said: > At least all of our own source code is (L)GPL2+, so it shouldn't > cause > problems. Not compatible to our license, but compatible to being included in collections with uniform license like ours. Nothing legal, just a practical remark against the proliferation of licenses. A proliferation of licenses makes making collections with one such statement difficult. And specially if the difference in two such licenses is small, it is IMHO better conform to something already used.

Well, there are some important differences, such as the fact that the GPLv3 is no longer worded in terms of US law and that while you are allowed to implement DRM using GPLv3-covered code, you cannot use the provisions of DRM-specific laws (such as the EU Copyright Directive and the DMCA) to forbid others from reverse-engineering/circumventing it.

Show quoted text 7 lines
> I guess you mean "not"? In any case, GPLv3 also offers some > protection > against (or rather, offence against) software patents. I know that was the intention of GPLv3, but I don't what came of it, and how practical (or limiting) it is.

See the section "patents" in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl3-final-rationale.pdf . In short:
a) you give anyone a perpetual patent license on any patents you may hold required to use the code
b) if anyone else ever enforces a patent allegedly applying to the code to someone else, they use all rights to use the code c) the GPLv3, unlike the GPLv2, is compatible with other open source/ free software licenses that contain "patent retaliation" clauses

Jonas

Reply by email