Sign in Join

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

Mailing lists / lazarus / 2015-09

LGPL versions between RTL and LCL

5 messages · 3 people · –

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

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

Dmitry Boyarintsev

Hello,

I know lots of developers don't like licensing questions, but I'll ask anyway.
Is it intended that RTL is using LGPL v2.1 as its base, while LCL is using an earlier verions LGPL v2?

Yes, both RTL and LCL are using the same "exception" to the license, but I'm just curious.

One (not-so) important difference between LGPL v2.1 and LGPL v2 is section 6.b)
In v2.1 it sort of implies usage of the library as dynamically linked/loaded library rather than part of executable. In v2 there's no such careful, your reply might be copy-pasted by me to this wiki page http://wiki.freepascal.org/licensing

thanks,
Dmitry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20150925/07fe5a0e/attachment.html>

Reply by email

Mattias Gaertner
to Dmitry Boyarintsev
Show quoted text 18 lines
Hello, I know lots of developers don't like licensing questions, but I'll ask anyway. Is it intended that RTL is using LGPL v2.1 as its base, while LCL is using an earlier verions LGPL v2? Yes, both RTL and LCL are using the same "exception" to the license, but I'm just curious. One (not-so) important difference between LGPL v2.1 and LGPL v2 is section 6.b) In v2.1 it sort of implies usage of the library as dynamically linked/loaded library rather than part of executable. In v2 there's no such requirement at all. Be careful, your reply might be copy-pasted by me to this wiki page http://wiki.freepascal.org/licensing

For simplicity the LCL should use the same license as FCL/RTL.

Can you extract the differences, so we can ask for permission from contributors?

Mattias

Reply by email

Dmitry Boyarintsev
to Mattias Gaertner

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Mattias Gaertner <

Show quoted text 8 lines
wrote: For simplicity the LCL should use the same license as FCL/RTL. Can you extract the differences, so we can ask for permission from contributors?

I took a lazy path and let a tool do the comparison.

The resulting PDF could be downloaded from here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ao0ckgud0gix9xw/lgpl_from_2_to_2_1.pdf?dl=0

The change I was talking about could be found on page 6 on the document (at the very bottom) the new section was introduced specifically requiring the dynamic loading.

Reminder: LCL is using LGPL 2, RTL is using LGPL v2.1

thanks,
Dmitry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20151123/c6f10a5a/attachment.html>

Reply by email

C Western
to Dmitry Boyarintsev
Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote 20 lines
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Mattias Gaertner < <mailto:>> wrote: For simplicity the LCL should use the same license as FCL/RTL. Can you extract the differences, so we can ask for permission from contributors? I took a lazy path and let a tool do the comparison. The resulting PDF could be downloaded from here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ao0ckgud0gix9xw/lgpl_from_2_to_2_1.pdf?dl=0 The change I was talking about could be found on page 6 on the document (at the very bottom) the new section was introduced specifically requiring the dynamic loading. Reminder: LCL is using LGPL 2, RTL is using LGPL v2.1

My understanding was that LCL had to use the LGPL, and probably v2, as it is not possible to use the LCL via dynamic linking.

Or am I misinterpreting this?

Colin

Reply by email

Mattias Gaertner
to C Western
[...] My understanding was that LCL had to use the LGPL, and probably v2, as it is not possible to use the LCL via dynamic linking.

It's the same for the FCL/RTL. That's why the license is "modified LGPL2". The modification is the dyn linking exception.

Or am I misinterpreting this?

Mattias

Reply by email