> On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > >
> > > With the current package structure and compiler bugs, that is true
> > > regardless
> > > of the license issue, so the whole point is moot anyway :-)
> >
> > No, the MPL case still applies.
>
> You misunderstand me, I think ?
>
> The license issue is not relevant: currently, sources MUST be supplied,
> or you cannot use the package. You simply cannot get them in the IDE if
> you don't have the sources.
> So distributing a package for Lazarus as binary only is simply not an
> option, regardless of the license you may or may not wish to use.
>
> Hence my remark that the whole point is moot...
Yes, but the point is that GPL incompatible doesn't automatically mean
binary.
- MPL source _IS_ open, but still not linked to GPL due to the MPL<->GPL
compat.
- packages that are commercial (iow not redistributable), BUT come with
source can't be used since you can't ship the binaries because then you also
have to ship the commercial source.
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
