At 12:48 +0100 20/3/06, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Peter N Lewis wrote:
But even if that were the only requirement, it is a fairly onerous one to put on developers.
Have you done it? I have. So I think I can tell it's doable. I don't think it's particularly difficult either, 2-3 more lines in my Makefile or so.
It's not so much the actual creation, its the whole distribution channel that is then required. You need to either include the extra object and the source of the library in the distribution, or maintain a second version at the source site which needs to be kept for three years. You couldn't maintain the spirit of the rules when other people redistribute your software (eg versiontracker.com, magazine CDs). If a version needs to be pulled entirely (due to a security or data trashing problem for example), you could not do it, as the faulty version would need to be kept around for three years.
The LGPL also requires copyright notices,
If you make changes to it. (Otherwise you just copy the existing code with the existing copyright notices.) AFAICS, this is no different with the FPC exception.
Yes, you need to display library copyright notes, that's what I meant.
LGPL:
You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the user to the copy of this License.
So that probably means notices in the About box. It's not clear how the version information for the bundle, which includes a tiny amount of space for a copyright, would be affected - it couldn't include it, yet it might be interpreted that it must include it.
I don't really object to licenses and copyright notices in the docs, especially for a real LGPL library, but I don't believe just using the RTS of the compiler should have such requirements. Mind you, at least there is no equivalent to the OpenSSL press release debacle.
Actually, we're not talking about the GPC RTS here, but FPC's modified LGPL. I also wasn't objecting to these modifications, BTW, just pointing out that the standard LGPL does not require dynamic linking when used with differently licensed code, which is a common misunderstanding.
Agreed.
There is very good reasons for static linking the RTS to not bring in any part of the GPL or LGPL license.
That might be a misunderstanding. If the RTS were under the plain (L)GPL, then its conditions would also (or especially) apply with static linking.
Yes, absolutely. Which is why I'm glad there is an exception for linking to the GPC RTS. I'll have to go and read the FPC RTS license, since if it really is LGPL-like, depending on what the differences are that may be a reason to use GPC over FPC. Peter.