Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

On 18 May 2016 at 01:13, Mattias Gaertner wrote: > > 1) Document licensing terms in *.lpk files of each package (making it > > mandatory for all future packages). > > It always was. If a lpk is missing its license, please report the bug. > A quick search revealed that

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

On Tue, 17 May 2016 23:07:38 +0300 Denis Kozlov wrote: > On 17 May 2016 at 16:34, Mattias Gaertner wrote: > > > > > For Debian maintainers and other third party bundles we should gather > > the abbreviated license information in the

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

On 17 May 2016 at 16:34, Mattias Gaertner wrote: > > For Debian maintainers and other third party bundles we should gather > the abbreviated license information in the components/readme.txt, so > they can easier pick the cherries. > It's not a bad idea. Maybe we can

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

On 2016-05-17 18:49, Florian Klämpfl wrote: > Please quote properly! The reason is not that it does not fit into > the goals but the reason is simply that we cannot expect that > everybody checks each used packages 1. I didn't actually quote anybody. 2. What I said is that the BSD License

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

Am 17.05.2016 um 10:41 schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys: > > I just had a similar thread in the FPC mailing list. The “Simplified > BSD” (2-clause) license is as “free” as you can get, but apparently it > doesn’t fit in with the goals of Free Pascal’s FCL, Please quote properly! The reason is not that

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

Am 2016-05-17 um 18:15 schrieb Ondrej Pokorny: > On 17.05.2016 18:09, Jürgen Hestermann wrote: >> I don't use AGGPAS but I assume that the GPC unit is part of the package. >> If that is true, then it would not be enough to check for the licencing of the package. > Of course it is. Please try to

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

On 17.05.2016 18:09, Jürgen Hestermann wrote: I don't use AGGPAS but I assume that the GPC unit is part of the package. If that is true, then it would not be enough to check for the licencing of the package. Of course it is. Please try to find information before you post wrong statements.

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

Am 2016-05-17 um 15:52 schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys: > Getting back to AggPas. If you use the AggPas code as-is from the > "components" directory, there are no licensing restriction for > commercial projects. So there is NO issue by default. You have to > explicitly include the gpc unit somewhere in

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

On 2016-05-17 14:14, Denis Kozlov wrote: > developer uses an official distribution of IDE, whether it is Lazarus or > Delphi or other, it is not natural to require developer to check *every > component or part* for licensing terms As Mattias said, it's not per component, but per package. So that

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

On Tue, 17 May 2016 16:14:01 +0300 Denis Kozlov wrote: >[...]it is not natural to require developer to check *every > component or part* for licensing terms, which can be hundreds or even > thousands of individual parts. Hundreds? You only need to check one per package. >

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

On 17 May 2016 at 13:24, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > Mattias already answered the question. “Free” is a relative term in the > open source world. Why must some code be excluded from Lazarus, even > though it is still open source - albeit with a different license. >

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

On 2016-05-17 11:09, Denis Kozlov wrote: > seem, especially for new comers, that all FPC/Lazarus sources are > GPL/LGPL licensed, and short of checking every source file/folder it is > impossible to tell otherwise. Why, nobody told them it is like that, so why would they assume that. Mattias

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

On 17 May 2016 at 11:41, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > I just had a similar thread in the FPC mailing list. The “Simplified > BSD” (2-clause) license is as “free” as you can get, but apparently it > doesn’t fit in with the goals of Free Pascal’s FCL, so no BSD

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

On 2016-05-17 09:31, Denis Kozlov wrote: > Licensing terms of GPC are more restrictive, they explicitly forbid use > for commercial purposes. Unless you ask for permission from the author, then it is fine. ;-) But that restriction only applies to commercial products - if you develop

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

On 2016-05-17 09:10, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: > Lazarus itself is not licensed under modified LGPL but GPL/LGPL. It's > LCL that uses modified LGPL. Third-party components in "components" > directory have different licenses as well. E.g. some are GPL only (e.g. > CodeTools). Exactly! Lazarus is a

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

On 17 May 2016 at 11:10, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: > How do you define "free"? Is GPL free? > I meant it in the simplest term, that developers can freely distribute or sell built applications. You are mixing up 2 different things. See >

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

On Tue, 17 May 2016 11:01:35 +0300 Denis Kozlov wrote: >[...] > Does it make sense to include NON-free components in Lazarus distribution? It depends on how you define "NON-free". The gpc.pas may be freely copied, modified, and redistributed provided that the copyright notice

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

On 17.05.2016 10:01, Denis Kozlov wrote: On 17 May 2016 at 10:15, Graeme Geldenhuys > wrote: This was discussed before and the licensing information (readme) was updated. The GPC code is totally optional and NOT used

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

On 17 May 2016 at 10:15, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > This was discussed before and the licensing information (readme) was > updated. The GPC code is totally optional and NOT used by default in > AggPas at all. So yes it is fine being there. > Does it make sense to

Re: [Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

On 2016-05-16 21:07, Denis Kozlov wrote: > Licensing terms of "components\aggpas\gpc" state that it is free for > non-commercial use only. Should it even be allowed to be part of Lazarus > components? This was discussed before and the licensing information (readme) was updated. The GPC code is