Sign in Join

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

Mailing lists / lazarus / 2013-02

Ide add-ons licensing issue

9 messages · 7 people · –

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

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

Giuliano Colla

It's my company policy to provide our customers the source code of the applications, with a licensing condition which specify that the source code is provided only for customer convenience and reference.

In some special cases, the customer can make small himself modifications, with our authorization, and the license is modified accordingly.
In those cases the customer is also informed of the Lazarus and fpc version used for the original compilation, to avoid any compatibility problem.

It's clear to me that our source code carries our license, while Lazarus and fpc come with GPL license.

But what if we have some packages, which are not only run-time, but also design-time, and which we must deploy in order to make our customer able to recompile the program?

They're not of general interest, so it doesn't make sense to contribute them to the Lazarus community (with one of them I tried, but it was rejected, as too specific). They're just in our hands, and they must be added to Lazarus IDE just for our applications.

Common sense tells me that they should GPL'd too, but I'd like to be comforted by a knowledgeable opinion.

Thanks,

Giuliano

Reply by email

Martin
to Giuliano Colla

All info from memory: double check yourself.

Also, I am no lawyer, and the info below is my opinion (my understanding of the licensing situation)

Giuliano Colla wrote 13 lines
It's my company policy to provide our customers the source code of the applications, with a licensing condition which specify that the source code is provided only for customer convenience and reference. In some special cases, the customer can make small himself modifications, with our authorization, and the license is modified accordingly. In those cases the customer is also informed of the Lazarus and fpc version used for the original compilation, to avoid any compatibility problem. It's clear to me that our source code carries our license, while Lazarus and fpc come with GPL license.

Actually:

LCL, RTL, FCL, LazUtils : LGPL + Linknig exception

IDE: GPL

Packages: various (e.g. SynEdit: MPL or GPL)

Show quoted text 12 lines
But what if we have some packages, which are not only run-time, but also design-time, and which we must deploy in order to make our customer able to recompile the program? They're not of general interest, so it doesn't make sense to contribute them to the Lazarus community (with one of them I tried, but it was rejected, as too specific). They're just in our hands, and they must be added to Lazarus IDE just for our applications. Common sense tells me that they should GPL'd too, but I'd like to be comforted by a knowledgeable opinion.

Depends on what your package depends on.

Most packages that integrate into the IDE use IdeIntf (and LCL, FCL ,ect).

IdeIntf is also LGPL.

If so, your package can be any license you like.

At least if you distribute it stand alone

However if you BUNDLE it with the IDE it may differ, because then it becomes part of a bundle containing GPL stuff.

Reply by email

Reinier Olislagers
to Martin
Martin wrote 53 lines
All info from memory: double check yourself. Also, I am no lawyer, and the info below is my opinion (my understanding of the licensing situation) On 23/02/2013 15:50, Giuliano Colla wrote: > It's my company policy to provide our customers the source code of the > applications, with a licensing condition which specify that the source > code is provided only for customer convenience and reference. > > In some special cases, the customer can make small himself > modifications, with our authorization, and the license is modified > accordingly. > In those cases the customer is also informed of the Lazarus and fpc > version used for the original compilation, to avoid any compatibility > problem. > > It's clear to me that our source code carries our license, while > Lazarus and fpc come with GPL license. Actually: LCL, RTL, FCL, LazUtils : LGPL + Linknig exception IDE: GPL Packages: various (e.g. SynEdit: MPL or GPL) > > But what if we have some packages, which are not only run-time, but > also design-time, and which we must deploy in order to make our > customer able to recompile the program? > > They're not of general interest, so it doesn't make sense to > contribute them to the Lazarus community (with one of them I tried, > but it was rejected, as too specific). They're just in our hands, and > they must be added to Lazarus IDE just for our applications. > > Common sense tells me that they should GPL'd too, but I'd like to be > comforted by a knowledgeable opinion. Depends on what your package depends on. Most packages that integrate into the IDE use IdeIntf (and LCL, FCL ,ect). IdeIntf is also LGPL. If so, your package can be any license you like. At least if you distribute it stand alone However if you BUNDLE it with the IDE it may differ, because then it becomes part of a bundle containing GPL stuff.

Agreed with everything Martin said, except I'm not sure about the bundling. AFAIK/AFAIR, you may perfectly legally distribute Lazarus exe+(a link to the) source code etc while adding your own other licensed programs.
Linking in GPL code is a different story though.

See e.g.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10305866/okay-to-distribute-gpl-program-with-commercial-product-in-the-same-installer

Reply by email

Sven Barth
to Reinier Olislagers
Reinier Olislagers wrote 34 lines
>> >> But what if we have some packages, which are not only run-time, but >> also design-time, and which we must deploy in order to make our >> customer able to recompile the program? >> >> They're not of general interest, so it doesn't make sense to >> contribute them to the Lazarus community (with one of them I tried, >> but it was rejected, as too specific). They're just in our hands, and >> they must be added to Lazarus IDE just for our applications. >> >> Common sense tells me that they should GPL'd too, but I'd like to be >> comforted by a knowledgeable opinion. > > Depends on what your package depends on. > > Most packages that integrate into the IDE use IdeIntf (and LCL, FCL ,ect). > > IdeIntf is also LGPL. > > If so, your package can be any license you like. > > At least if you distribute it stand alone > > However if you BUNDLE it with the IDE it may differ, because then it > becomes part of a bundle containing GPL stuff. > Agreed with everything Martin said, except I'm not sure about the bundling. AFAIK/AFAIR, you may perfectly legally distribute Lazarus exe+(a link to the) source code etc while adding your own other licensed programs. Linking in GPL code is a different story though. See e.g. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10305866/okay-to-distribute-gpl-program-with-commercial-product-in-the-same-installer

The problem of the original poster are IDE design time packages, not extra programs. Thus it's about linking and there I agree with Martin (though I'm no lawyer either...).

Regards,
Sven

Reply by email

Reinier Olislagers
to Sven Barth
Sven Barth wrote
The problem of the original poster are IDE design time packages, not extra programs. Thus it's about linking and there I agree with Martin

Depends on what Martin means by bundle.... I'm not a mind reader. I preferred to err on the side of caution and give some more information. Agreed that if it's only about linking, Martin covered the subject admirably already ;)

Reply by email

Alexsander Rosa
to Giuliano Colla: It's my company policy to provide our customers the source code of the applications, with…

Just send the components along with your source code. Add some kind of README.TXT explaining:
1) the requirements (Lazarus and FPC versions, etc) PLUS your components
2) step-by-step instructions to install your custom components on Lazarus. If they can't do that, they should not be messing with your code anyway... :-)

2013/2/23 Giuliano Colla

Show quoted text 30 lines
It's my company policy to provide our customers the source code of the applications, with a licensing condition which specify that the source code is provided only for customer convenience and reference. In some special cases, the customer can make small himself modifications, with our authorization, and the license is modified accordingly. In those cases the customer is also informed of the Lazarus and fpc version used for the original compilation, to avoid any compatibility problem. It's clear to me that our source code carries our license, while Lazarus and fpc come with GPL license. But what if we have some packages, which are not only run-time, but also design-time, and which we must deploy in order to make our customer able to recompile the program? They're not of general interest, so it doesn't make sense to contribute them to the Lazarus community (with one of them I tried, but it was rejected, as too specific). They're just in our hands, and they must be added to Lazarus IDE just for our applications. Common sense tells me that they should GPL'd too, but I'd like to be comforted by a knowledgeable opinion. Thanks, Giuliano
Atenciosamente, Alexsander da Rosa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20130223/c226b54c/attachment.html>

Reply by email

Marco van de Voort
to Sven Barth: The problem of the original poster are IDE design time packages, not extra programs. Thus…
Sven Barth wrote
The problem of the original poster are IDE design time packages, not extra programs. Thus it's about linking and there I agree with Martin (though I'm no lawyer either...).

Me too. GPL is a linking distribution license. Products from GPL programs are not automatically GPLed.

So designtime lazarus packages are only subject to GPL when distributed in linked form. (against the GPL part, Lazarus).

See also

http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/licensing#MPL_issues_relating_to_Lazarus

MPL is here used as GPL incompatible license, but of course that could be read as "commercial" too.

Note that the language is a bit weasely becuase at the time I was not very sure about this.

Reply by email

Giuliano Colla
to Alexsander Rosa: Just send the components along with your source code. Add some kind of README.TXT…

Il 23/02/2013 18:05, Alexsander Rosa ha scritto:

Show quoted text 7 lines
Just send the components along with your source code. Add some kind of README.TXT explaining: 1) the requirements (Lazarus and FPC versions, etc) PLUS your components 2) step-by-step instructions to install your custom components on Lazarus. If they can't do that, they should not be messing with your code anyway... :-)

Thank you for the suggestions. And thanks to all others too. But I'm a bit more conservative. If without step-by-step instructions they don't know how to install a component on Lazarus IDE, they should not be messing with our code... ;-)

Giuliano

Reply by email