Hello,
Often I need to tell anyone it's a good option to use the license from
the FPC RTL, but this license has no unique name, which leads to the
ackward need to use expressions like the same license as the Runtime
Library from Free Pascal or The same license as the Lazarus
Component Library.
On 20 Jun 2009, at 16:15, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
Modified LGPL just isn't good enought, because it's not unique enough.
Modified in which way? By who?
I would like to have a name for our license, what do you think? I
suggest:
* Free Pascal LGPL -- shortened to FPLGPL
I think
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
I think that would be a bad name, because
a) there is nothing specific to the FPC project about this license
b) many other projects also use this form of licensing (just google
for lgpl static linking exception without the quotes)
Simply LGPL
On Jun 20, 2009, at 6:00 AM, David Noon wrote:
I think it is more expressive to make the semantics clear by declaring
an inconstant constant as a variable -- because that's what it is --
This semantic issue is very confusing for beginners including people
who are migrating from a non
* Free Pascal LGPL -- shortened to FPLGPL
I don't like acronyms, especially if they are more than 3 letters long.
Why not simply name it Free Pascal Licence?
Jürgen Hestermann.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 18:31 +0200, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Richard Ward schrieb:
In my opinion also, the
semantics should be changed to reflect the actual nature of the
construct and behavior.
Agree.
I think Richard Ward actually meant the syntax, not the semantics.
The
