Hi,

I have released some free pascal code.

- *data2pas* a command line tool that generates pascal include files from a text file description. This is a tool similar to *data2inc* but using a more "pascalish" syntax. (GPL v3+)
http://yann.merignac.free.fr/data2pas.html
- *CmdLine* is a Free Pascal unit for parsing easily GNU style command line options. (LGPL v3+) http://yann.merignac.free.fr/unit-cmdline.html
- *GContnrs* is a generic container collection for Free Pascal. It implements : doubly linked lists, dequeues, hash maps, hash sets, priority queues, queues, stacks, tree maps, tree sets and vectors and some algorithms (sort, shuffle, min, max, ...). (LGPL v3+) http://yann.merignac.free.fr/unit-gcontnrs.html
- *UPasConf *a unit that has been designed to create configuration programs in Pascal. It allows you to create programs that mimic the famous './configure' script. It can also create GNU makefiles for your projects. (LGPL v3+) http://yann.merignac.free.fr/unit-upasconf.html

All units are under LGPL v3+ but I am not sure of my choice. I want the units to be usable by anyone in any kind of projects : closed source or not, commercial or not, etc... And, I want that any change to the source of the units must be made public. Do you think the LGPL is a good choice for that goals ?

Thanks (and sorry for my English)

Yes, that seems like a good fit to me.

The first item is a program, not a unit. For that one, the license has no influence whatsoever of how the output can be used.

In theory: yes. In practice: no, because FPC doesn't support dynamic linking to the extent that is required to make this painless. You will probably want to use the GPL+linking exception (or LGPL + static linking exception, as FPC uses, but that it exactly the same thing). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception for the general explanation, and http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/fpc/trunk/rtl/COPYING.FPC for how FPC words it.

Jonas

Ooops: Jonas is right, please see his post...

Static linking exception similar to what we use for FPC RTL and packages may be a useful extension if you want to encourage also use in commercial software.

Tomas

Ok. So I will release new versions with licenses changed to GPL v3 + linking exception.

Thanks to all.

2014-02-28 11:49 GMT+01:00 Jonas Maebe :

In our previous episode, Yann M?rignac said:

Ok. So I will release new versions with licenses changed to GPL v3 + linking exception.

I would do gplv2+ + linking exception, since that makes it more compatible to FPC, and the risk on Tivoisation is that great in this case.

At least all of our own source code is (L)GPL2+, so it shouldn't cause problems. Do we have package that are GPLv2 without the "or later" clause?

and the risk on Tivoisation is that great in this case.

I guess you mean "not"? In any case, GPLv3 also offers some protection against (or rather, offence against) software patents.

Jonas

In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:

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.

Do we have package that are GPLv2 without the "or later" clause?

Not that I know.

> and the risk on Tivoisation is that great in this case. 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.

Compatibility with FPC and avoid the proliferation of licenses... 2 good arguments in favor of GPL v2+ + linking exception. I'll go that way.

Thanks

2014-02-28 13:10 GMT+01:00 Marco van de Voort :