Hi,

I looked in the fcl at some units and there license information. The unit header comment mentioned that I should consult the COPYING.FPC file. The "packages" (fcl) directory didn't contain such a file, neither did the root of the FPC src directory. I eventually found it in the "rtl" directory.

Just a suggestion, but wouldn't it be a more obvious location if the COPYING.FPC (and related files) were moved to the root of the FPC sources directory tree. Then, like the Lazarus project does, list a summary directory layout tree listing the most common licenses per directory and a small disclaimer.

eg:

<fpc>/
|
+ ide (GPLv2)
|
+ compiler (GPLv2)
|
+ rtl (modified LGPLv2)
|
+ packages (modified LGPLv2)

Then a small disclaimer that some directories or units might have other licenses applied.

This would make it much clearer for anybody new to the project or source code. I don't mind putting a patch together to apply these changes.

Regards,
Graeme

On Fri, October 20, 2017 11:16, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:

Hi,

.
.

Note that all the license files are located in the fpcbuild repository in /install/doc and installed into the directory doc/fpc during installation. That is the primary location from my point of view. The top level source directory is not such a good choice IMHO, because there are also the compiler and IDE subdirectories there and they have different licenses.

Tomas

Tomas Hajny wrote

Note that all the license files are located in the fpcbuild repository in /install/doc and installed into the directory doc/fpc during installation.

The problem with that is that it is in a total different repository to the FPC sources, or it is hidden behind a binary installer. Speaking for myself, I can't remember the last time (over 10 years ago) that I installed FPC or Lazarus from a binary package. I always (like most software I use) download the sources and compile it myself. I'm sure there are many others like me, and having the license information in a more logical location makes perfect sense to me.

The top level source directory is not such a good choice IMHO, because there are also the compiler and IDE subdirectories there and they have different licenses.

Hence my "license directory tree" example, where it clearly outlines which license are used in which directories, with a small disclaimer that some files or directories may have other licenses (but they are the minority).

Bottom line.... Having the general license file for the "packages" directory under the "rtl" directory makes even less sense.

Regards,
Graeme

Graeme Geldenhuys wrote

On 2017-10-20 10:51, Tomas Hajny wrote:

.
.

Bottom line.... Having the general license file for the "packages" directory under the "rtl" directory makes even less sense.

It does make some sense in my view, because anybody using the packages needs to have and use either the RTL directory, or the binary installation. Since there is a reference to a particular file available, it shouldn't be very difficult to find that file using appropriate tools even if you don't know the I would suggest
spending time on more useful things than playing with the location of a license file in the SVN repository, but that's just my view and others may see it differently, of course.

Tomas