Sign in Join

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

Mailing lists / fpc-pascal / 2009-06

Name for our license

10 messages · 6 people · –

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

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

Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho

Hello,

Often I need to tell anyone it's a good option to use the license from the FPC RTL, but this license has no unique name, which leads to the ackward need to use expressions like "the same license as the Runtime Library from Free Pascal" or "The same license as the Lazarus Component Library".

Modified LGPL just isn't good enought, because it's not unique enough. Modified in which way? By who?

I would like to have a name for our license, what do you think? I suggest:

* Free Pascal LGPL --> shortened to FPLGPL

Having a name for the license will also make it possible for example, that it is one day included in license templates in various places, for example SourceForge.

There is no need to change the FPC and Lazarus code to use the new license name, but new projects could start using it if it's agreed upon as a standard name for the license, and template files can be made for it.

thanks,

Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
Jonas Maebe
to Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote 7 lines
Modified LGPL just isn't good enought, because it's not unique enough. Modified in which way? By who? I would like to have a name for our license, what do you think? I suggest: * Free Pascal LGPL --> shortened to FPLGPL

I think that would be a bad name, because
a) there is nothing specific to the FPC project about this license b) many other projects also use this form of licensing (just google for "lgpl static linking exception" without the quotes)

Simply "LGPL with static linking exception" seems fine to me as a description.

Jonas

Marco van de Voort
to Jonas Maebe

In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:

Show quoted text 7 lines
I think that would be a bad name, because a) there is nothing specific to the FPC project about this license b) many other projects also use this form of licensing (just google for "lgpl static linking exception" without the quotes) Simply "LGPL with static linking exception" seems fine to me as a description.

http://wiki.freepascal.org/licensing

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Jonas Maebe: I think that would be a bad name, because a) there is nothing specific to the FPC project…
Jonas Maebe wrote 5 lines
> > * Free Pascal LGPL --> shortened to FPLGPL I think that would be a bad name, because a) there is nothing specific to the FPC project about this license

Felipe, I like the idea, but I have to agree with Jonas. I work on a few projects and some use the "modified lgpl" license as used by FPC's RTL and Lazarus. And no, those projects have nothing to do with Free Pascal Compiler or Lazarus project.

Regards,
- Graeme -

________________________________________________
fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit
http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho: Often I need to tell anyone it's a good option to use the license from the FPC RTL, but…
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote
ackward need to use expressions like "the same license as the Runtime Library from Free Pascal" or "The same license as the Lazarus Component Library".

I to honest I do not understand the ins and outs of the various licenses, but I read the following on the wikipedia site. The the following (below) mean that LGPL v3 license is similar to the "modified LGPL v2" that FPC and Lazarus use? If so, then what about moving to the LGPL v3 license instead?

"Version 3 of the LGPL is constructed by applying a GPL linking exception to version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPL)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_License

Regards,
- Graeme -

________________________________________________
fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit
http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/

Marco van de Voort
to Graeme Geldenhuys

In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:

Show quoted text 11 lines
> Library from Free Pascal" or "The same license as the Lazarus > Component Library". I to honest I do not understand the ins and outs of the various licenses, but I read the following on the wikipedia site. The the following (below) mean that LGPL v3 license is similar to the "modified LGPL v2" that FPC and Lazarus use? If so, then what about moving to the LGPL v3 license instead? "Version 3 of the LGPL is constructed by applying a GPL linking exception to version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPL)."

No it does not, I think. It just says that the same process to construct LGPL3 from GPL3 is made as was to make LGPL2 from GPL2.

Jonas Maebe
to Graeme Geldenhuys: I to honest I do not understand the ins and outs of the various licenses, but I read the…
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote 8 lines
I to honest I do not understand the ins and outs of the various licenses, but I read the following on the wikipedia site. The the following (below) mean that LGPL v3 license is similar to the "modified LGPL v2" that FPC and Lazarus use? If so, then what about moving to the LGPL v3 license instead? "Version 3 of the LGPL is constructed by applying a GPL linking exception to version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPL)."

The LGPL mandates that end users must be able to relink a program with different versions of the LGPL code. In practice, this amounts more or less to the LGPL being the GPL with a
a) dynamic linking exception (dynamically linking a program with the GPL requires the program to also have a GPL-compatible license), and b) requirement that if you statically link against LGPL code, that you provide the end users with all object and other files required to relink the program with a different version of the LGPL code

The (static) linking exception to the LGPL (as used by FPC and others) means that requirement b) of the LGPL is removed.

Jonas

Graeme Geldenhuys
to Marco van de Voort: In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said: No it does not, I think. It just says…
Marco van de Voort wrote
No it does not, I think. It just says that the same process to construct LGPL3 from GPL3 is made as was to make LGPL2 from GPL2.

Ah yes, I see what you mean. I read it to quickly and misunderstood the overall meaning. My bad. :-(

Regards,
- Graeme -

________________________________________________
fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit
http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/

Joost van der Sluis
to Jonas Maebe: I think that would be a bad name, because a) there is nothing specific to the FPC project…

Op zaterdag 20-06-2009 om 16:25 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Jonas Maebe:

Show quoted text 14 lines
On 20 Jun 2009, at 16:15, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote: > Modified LGPL just isn't good enought, because it's not unique enough. > Modified in which way? By who? > > I would like to have a name for our license, what do you think? I > suggest: > > * Free Pascal LGPL --> shortened to FPLGPL I think that would be a bad name, because a) there is nothing specific to the FPC project about this license b) many other projects also use this form of licensing (just google for "lgpl static linking exception" without the quotes)

This exception is often called the "classpath exception". So the license we use already has a name.

Simply "LGPL with static linking exception" seems fine to me as a description.

That's also clear enough.

Joost.