Sign in Join

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

Mailing lists / lazarus / 2021-12

Source file license

6 messages · 5 people ·

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

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

Unknown author

Hi,

currently I'm writing a utility which I would like to be included in Lazarus and / or FPC ( if it accepted of course ).

Usually I license my open source software under MIT license ( see PS ). After reading some forum threads regarding licenses I am a little lost . So I ask, what licenses are accepted by the Lazarus project ?

MIT ? GPL v2 ? GPL v3 ?

regards,

PS: This MIT license is what I usually use :

Inside units :

Licensed under the MIT License (MIT).
See licence file in root directory.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

And in the project root a license file :

MIT License
Copyright (c) 2021 Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis

Reply by email

Michael Van Canneyt
to Unknown author
Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis wrote 10 lines
Hi, currently I'm writing a utility which I would like to be included in Lazarus and / or FPC ( if it accepted of course ). Usually I license my open source software under MIT license ( see PS ). After reading some forum threads regarding licenses I am a little lost . So I ask, what licenses are accepted by the Lazarus project ? MIT ? GPL v2 ? GPL v3 ?

For inclusion in FPC we require the FPC license, which is essentially LGPL V2 with linking exception.

Michael.

Reply by email

Juha Manninen
to Unknown author: currently I'm writing a utility which I would like to be included in Lazarus and / or FPC…

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 12:57 PM Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis via lazarus <

Show quoted text 5 lines
wrote: what licenses are accepted by the Lazarus project ? MIT ? GPL v2 ? GPL v3 ?

The Lazarus IDE itself is GPL v2. Most packages are LGPL v2. If your utility is to be installed into the IDE, LGPL v2 is the best. Executables outside the IDE can have other licenses but GPL or LGPL is still recommended.

Regards,
Juha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus-ide.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20211215/84cab34d/attachment.html>

Reply by email

Martin Frb
to Juha Manninen
Juha Manninen wrote 12 lines
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 12:57 PM Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis via lazarus wrote: what licenses are accepted by the Lazarus project ?    MIT ? GPL v2 ? GPL v3 ? The Lazarus IDE itself is GPL v2. Most packages are LGPL v2. If your utility is to be installed into the IDE, LGPL v2 is the best. Executables outside the IDE can have other licenses but GPL or LGPL is still recommended.

IMHO:

It is also acceptable to have a "mixed license". E.g.    Licensed [L]GPL 2 [OR: "2 or later"] or MIT at the users choice.    Anyone using/modifying this code must keep at least either one of the two Licenses, but is free to remove the other.

We inherited a case like this in SynEdit. You can check there how exactly it is described.

-----
As Juha said:
- If it is an IDE plugin, to be compiled into the IDE
- and to be included in our repo / shipped with the installer then it should really include/be [L]GPL at least including version 2.

If it is to be run from the IDE, lazbuild, our makefiles, or the like, then it should be permissive enough not to burden us with displaying special notes.
Of course a mention in the "about" dialog can be required. (not sure if Lazbuild currently has any provisions to print such things as "attribution notes".

-----
As with all things that evolve over time, we already have to many Licenses, on different parts of the code.

This imposes extra work on users, who have to check what the can use in their projects.
By including [L]GPL 2 (with/without the LCL linking permission) a common base would be kept.
Additional/Optional Licenses should be no issue.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus-ide.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20211215/43cde896/attachment.html>

Reply by email

Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
to Martin Frb

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 3:24 PM Martin Frb via lazarus <

Show quoted text 27 lines
wrote: On 15/12/2021 12:53, Juha Manninen via lazarus wrote: On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 12:57 PM Dimitrios Chr. Ioannidis via lazarus < > wrote: > what licenses are accepted by the Lazarus project ? > MIT ? GPL v2 ? GPL v3 ? > The Lazarus IDE itself is GPL v2. Most packages are LGPL v2. If your utility is to be installed into the IDE, LGPL v2 is the best. Executables outside the IDE can have other licenses but GPL or LGPL is still recommended. IMHO: It is also acceptable to have a "mixed license". E.g. Licensed [L]GPL 2 [OR: "2 or later"] or MIT at the users choice. Anyone using/modifying this code must keep at least either one of the two Licenses, but is free to remove the other. We inherited a case like this in SynEdit. You can check there how exactly it is described.

LGPL is a Copy-left , MIT is a Permissive license . Use of such a two licenses
will be more suitable for ( real or legal ) persons to select one most suitable for
their needs . In turn , this will increase the number of users of the related software .

With my best wishes ,

Mehmet Erol Sanliturk

Show quoted text 29 lines
----- As Juha said: - If it is an IDE plugin, to be compiled into the IDE - and to be included in our repo / shipped with the installer then it should really include/be [L]GPL at least including version 2. If it is to be run from the IDE, lazbuild, our makefiles, or the like, then it should be permissive enough not to burden us with displaying special notes. Of course a mention in the "about" dialog can be required. (not sure if Lazbuild currently has any provisions to print such things as "attribution notes". ----- As with all things that evolve over time, we already have to many Licenses, on different parts of the code. This imposes extra work on users, who have to check what the can use in their projects. By including [L]GPL 2 (with/without the LCL linking permission) a common base would be kept. Additional/Optional Licenses should be no issue. -- _______________________________________________ lazarus mailing list https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus-ide.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20211215/056b57b4/attachment.html>

Reply by email

Juha Manninen
to Martin Frb: IMHO: It is also acceptable to have a "mixed license". E.g.    Licensed [L]GPL 2 [OR:…

On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 2:24 PM Martin Frb via lazarus <

Show quoted text 7 lines
wrote: It is also acceptable to have a "mixed license". E.g. Licensed [L]GPL 2 [OR: "2 or later"] or MIT at the users choice. Anyone using/modifying this code must keep at least either one of the two Licenses, but is free to remove the other.

Yes, a dual license. I forgot to mention that.
Lazarus sources include a fork of the Jedi Code Format package which has a dual license:
Mozilla Public License v1.1 or GNU General Public License v2

Juha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus-ide.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20211215/6bc36f75/attachment-0001.html>

Reply by email