Am 18.08.2010 08:23, schrieb Rugxulo:
I suppose this alludes to my questioning of Pemberton's claim. But again, this is a bad example, since as Florian wrote, the statement is in the sources, whereas in the P4 source there is no such statement, as I pointed out.
FPC clearly didn't make it very obvious what exact GPL they were using, probably because nobody cared!!
I usually don't discuss FPC on the GPC mailing list but in this case I will. The statements in the compiler sources are very clear (taking e.g. the first source file in the compiler source directory) http://svn.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/trunk/compiler/aasmbase.pas?rev...:
"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version."
All compiler source files contain such a remark, so if somebody wants to reuse the sources he has just to look at the head of the source and he knows which license the source has (this is nowadays common practice btw). What else do you expect (this is a rhetoric question!)?