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

[Mattias Gaertner]

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 components/readme.txt, so
> > they can easier pick the cherries.
> >
> 
> It's not a bad idea.
> 
> Maybe we can go even a step further, to avoid duplication and introduce
> some consistency:
> 
> 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.

> 2) Use 2 licensing attributes/nodes in *.lpk files:
> A) License Title (e.g. "GPL", "LGPL", "MPL", "MIT", "BSD" ... "Custom"
> - so that it can be easily enumerated and summarized);

What about double licensing (e.g. "GPL2 or higher", "MPL or LGPL2 with
liking exception") or part (e.g. "LGPL-2, except gpc.pas which has
custom license")?

> B) License Description (i.e. this can be the full license text, in case
> of "Custom" licensing terms)
> 3) Create IDE tools to summarize licensing terms of:
>A) Currently installed packages,
>B) All available packages,

This info can be shown in "Package Graph" and "Install Packages" in the
memo. Read this: you don't need a new dialog for this.

>C) Packages used in the current project (if possible)

This info can be shown in the Project Inspector. Read this: you don't
need a new dialog for this.


> If this is suitable, I volunteer to analyze licensing terms of existing
> packages and implement the work above.

Thanks.

Mattias

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

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

[Denis Kozlov]

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 go even a step further, to avoid duplication and introduce
some consistency:

1) Document licensing terms in *.lpk files of each package (making it
mandatory for all future packages).
2) Use 2 licensing attributes/nodes in *.lpk files:
A) License Title (e.g. "GPL", "LGPL", "MPL", "MIT", "BSD" ... "Custom"
- so that it can be easily enumerated and summarized);
B) License Description (i.e. this can be the full license text, in case
of "Custom" licensing terms)
3) Create IDE tools to summarize licensing terms of:
   A) Currently installed packages,
   B) All available packages,
   C) Packages used in the current project (if possible)

If this is suitable, I volunteer to analyze licensing terms of existing
packages and implement the work above.

Denis
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

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

[Graeme Geldenhuys]

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 doesn't fit with the FCL
   goals. What you just said is the same thing, just explained in
   a bit more detail.

So I don't see anything wrong with my statement. FPC likes to police
developers, Lazarus leave the task up to the developer. I don't have a
problem with either.

Regards,
  Graeme

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

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

[Florian Klämpfl]

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 it does not fit into the goals 
but the reason is
simply that we cannot expect that everybody checks each used packages unit for 
its license and add
the appropriate copyright line to the application if a certain unit is used.

> so no BSD licensed
> components will be accepted in the FCL. I believe that is very
> unfortunate, but I respect there wishes.
> 


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Jump to implementation

[Ondrej Pokorny]

On 17.05.2016 19:01, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:

On 2016-05-17 17:09, Ondrej Pokorny wrote:

Tools->Options->CodeTools->General->Jump directly to method body.

Nice, I didn't even know that existed. Thanks for sharing.


You are welcome. It's quite a new feature, added in January: 
http://mantis.freepascal.org/view.php?id=13245


Ondrej

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Jump to implementation

[Graeme Geldenhuys]

On 2016-05-17 17:09, Ondrej Pokorny wrote:
> Tools->Options->CodeTools->General->Jump directly to method body.

Nice, I didn't even know that existed. Thanks for sharing.

Regards,
  Graeme


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

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

[Jürgen Hestermann]

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 find information before you post wrong 
statements. There is an info about it in the package. See 
components/aggpas/readme.txt

Well, to me it only sounded contradikting that there is "one licence per 
package" and
on the other hand *some* units in packages may have different licences.

I was (am) just not sure that we can rely on having *all* licence information 
for a package
summed up in just one readme file (of this package) for all packages (not just 
AGGPAS).


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Jump to implementation

[Aradeonas]

> Tools->Options->CodeTools->General->Jump directly to method body.
 
What a relief :D
 
Regards,
Ara
 
 

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - Email service worth paying for. Try it for free

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

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

[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 find information before you post wrong 
statements. There is an info about it in the package. See 
components/aggpas/readme.txt


Ondrej


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

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

[Jürgen Hestermann]

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 YOUR code before a license
> restriction applies. AggPas functions perfectly well without the gpc
> unit, hence it is not referenced anywhere in the standard AggPas units.

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.
Every unit can have different licencing restrictions which makes it quite
cumbersome to find all licencing information.


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] Jump to implementation

[Ondrej Pokorny]

On 17.05.2016 18:04, Aradeonas wrote:

Hi,
When you do Ctrl+Click on a procedure you will go to the interface and 
then you should hit Ctrl+Shift+Down to go to the implementation, How 
can I make it like Delphi that when you do Ctrl+Click on a procedure 
it goes to implementation not interface?


Tools->Options->CodeTools->General->Jump directly to method body.

Ondrej

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

[Lazarus] Jump to implementation

[Aradeonas]

Hi,
 
When you do Ctrl+Click on a procedure you will go to the interface and
then you should hit Ctrl+Shift+Down to go to the implementation, How can
I make it like Delphi that when you do Ctrl+Click on a procedure it goes
to implementation not interface?
 
Regards,
Ara
 

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
  love email again

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

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

[Graeme Geldenhuys]

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
reduces the amount of checking significantly.

The other thing is, what you are saying above might work fine for closed
source applications like Delphi, but not for open source projects like
Lazarus. There is no need to limit or place restrictions on bundled
[useful] components. Each project developed by an end-user has different
goals.


> That is why I thought it could be clearer if most of Lazarus/FPC code base
> is under the same licensing schema, while everything that falls outside of
> it could be easily discovered

Placing them in different directories is going to do *nothing* for the
“easily discovered” argument. ‘make ide’ or ‘make bigide’ builds a
predetermined set of components and registers them on the Component
Palette. Lazarus developers tend to simply select and drop a component
on a form. They are not going to check which package that component
comes from, then double check the directory of that unit.

What they are going to do is associate a package dependency with there
project. That doesn’t reveal the directory location though.

The licensing information should be in the “Package Options ->
Description -> License” memo. But sadly, many packages don’t include
that information. So again, it is the developers job to make sure any
components they use have a license that agrees with their project. No
need for the Lazarus Team to police developers.


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 YOUR code before a license
restriction applies. AggPas functions perfectly well without the gpc
unit, hence it is not referenced anywhere in the standard AggPas units.

Regards,
  Graeme

-- 
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/

My public PGP key:  http://tinyurl.com/graeme-pgp

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

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

[Mattias Gaertner]

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.

 
> That is why I thought it could be clearer if most of Lazarus/FPC code base
> is under the same licensing schema, while everything that falls outside of
> it could be easily discovered (this is where an idea of placing such code
> into a dedicated folder came about). This kind of approach would
> drastically simply code base slicing based on licensing terms, that is what
> Debian packagers have to do with Lazarus and many other packages.

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.

Mattias

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

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

[Denis Kozlov]

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.
>

One can also call a piece of code "free" which allows distribution of
source but forbids distribution in compiled form, but then that would
render it "free" but useless. I regret referring to the term "free",
because everybody has their own understanding of what it means.

If a developer uses every willy nilly component out there, and never
> checks any license details of those components, they are looking for
> trouble. As a developer, part of your job is to ensure whatever 3rd
> party components you use fits in with your project goals.
>

Again, this is an extreme, let's narrow it down. I am talking about
official bundled components.

Of course, when a developer decides to use a 3rd party component it is
natural to check the licensing terms of that component. However, when a
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, which can be hundreds or even
thousands of individual parts.

That is why I thought it could be clearer if most of Lazarus/FPC code base
is under the same licensing schema, while everything that falls outside of
it could be easily discovered (this is where an idea of placing such code
into a dedicated folder came about). This kind of approach would
drastically simply code base slicing based on licensing terms, that is what
Debian packagers have to do with Lazarus and many other packages.

Denis
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

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

[Graeme Geldenhuys]

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 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.

> 
> Q1: Should all bundled code, whether it is FCL or LCL or otherwise,
> follow the standard FPC/Lazarus licensing schema?

No, and there is no good reason why it must. The Lazarus project already
makes it very clear... See the readme file located in the “components”
directory.

If a developer uses every willy nilly component out there, and never
checks any license details of those components, they are looking for
trouble. As a developer, part of your job is to ensure whatever 3rd
party components you use fits in with your project goals.


> Q2: Maybe libraries and components which do not fall under the same
> licensing terms should be moved to a separate folder

Again, why? The readme file inside the “components” directory already
summarised everything you need to know. Nobody officially part of the
Lazarus project has every mentioned that all components included with
Lazarus has the same license as the IDE or LCL - so don’t make that
assumption.


Regards,
  Graeme

-- 
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/

My public PGP key:  http://tinyurl.com/graeme-pgp

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

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

[Denis Kozlov]

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 licensed
> components will be accepted in the FCL. I believe that is very
> unfortunate, but I respect there wishes.
>

That is the precisely the disconnect that I am worried about. It may 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.

Q1: Should all bundled code, whether it is FCL or LCL or otherwise, follow
the standard FPC/Lazarus licensing schema? So far it feels to be on a
case-by-case basis.

Q2: Maybe libraries and components which do not fall under the same
licensing terms should be moved to a separate folder, to help developers
identify portions of code which require an inspection of the licensing
terms before their use?

Denis
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] How to play audio from memory.

[Graeme Geldenhuys]

On 2016-05-17 08:27, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> Right Click / Filter*

Awesome, thanks.

Regards,
  Graeme


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

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

[Graeme Geldenhuys]

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
non-commercial products, that you are allowed to use it as is.

Regards,
  Graeme


--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

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

[Graeme Geldenhuys]

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 bit of a mixed bag, and it is up to the developer
to check the license of any third party component, be that in the
“components” directory, or the Lazarus-CCR code repository. Not all open
source licenses are equal, so it is up to the developer to decide if it
fits in with his wishes and his project goals.

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 licensed
components will be accepted in the FCL. I believe that is very
unfortunate, but I respect there wishes.

Coming back to AggPas, the Generic Polygon Clipper (GPC) unit is
completely optional as I mentioned, and not used by AggPas as standard.
The GPC unit by itself is not the issue, but the Algorithm that it
implements - that is what is under license. Now some would argue that
algorithms cannot be licensed either, but that is another matter, and
not something I would like to discuss.

Regards,
  Graeme

-- 
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/

My public PGP key:  http://tinyurl.com/graeme-pgp

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

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

[Denis Kozlov]

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
> http://wiki.freepascal.org/Lazarus_Faq#Licensing
>
Licensing terms is an intricate subject, I was over-generalizing it.

Neither GPL/LGPL/modifed.LGPL explicitly prohibit building commercial
applications. Licensing terms of GPC are more restrictive, they explicitly
forbid use for commercial purposes.

Denis
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

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

[Mattias Gaertner]

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 is preserved on all copies.
You may not distribute this software, in whole or in part, as
part of any commercial product without the express consent of
the author.

 
> Similarly, many icons were recently removed from Lazarus because they were
> NON-free, even though optional to use.
> 
> This breaks the paradigm and consistency that FPC, Lazarus and LCL are
> licensed under modified LGPL .
> It puts developer into a tricky situation - does one needs to check every
> source code file to ensure it can be included in their code base?

Developers must at least read the readme of each package they use.
The aggpas readme.txt mentions the gpc exception. 
And Lazarus has GPL packages, which do not allow use in closed source
applications.

Mattias

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

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

[Ondrej Pokorny]

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 by default in
AggPas at all. So yes it is fine being there.


Does it make sense to include NON-free components in Lazarus distribution?

How do you define "free"? Is GPL free?

Similarly, many icons were recently removed from Lazarus because they 
were NON-free, even though optional to use.

They were not optional to use :)

This breaks the paradigm and consistency that FPC, Lazarus and LCL are 
licensed under modified LGPL 
. It puts developer into 
a tricky situation - does one needs to check every source code file to 
ensure it can be included in their code base?


You are mixing up 2 different things. See 
http://wiki.freepascal.org/Lazarus_Faq#Licensing


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).


Ondrej
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

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

[Denis Kozlov]

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 include NON-free components in Lazarus distribution?

Similarly, many icons were recently removed from Lazarus because they were
NON-free, even though optional to use.

This breaks the paradigm and consistency that FPC, Lazarus and LCL are
licensed under modified LGPL .
It puts developer into a tricky situation - does one needs to check every
source code file to ensure it can be included in their code base?

Denis
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] How to play audio from memory.

[Mattias Gaertner]

On Tue, 17 May 2016 08:13:11 +0100
Graeme Geldenhuys  wrote:

>[...]
> > the code tree that references those units.  Do you know if Lazarus has a 
> > way to show the units used when a compilation fails?

You might want to increase the compiler verbosity. Project / Project
Options / Compiler Options / Verbosity

 
> Do a Build All instead of a standard Compile.Then right click in the
> IDE's Messages window and select "Copy -> Copy All Messages". Paste the
> clipboard to some text editor and review all the units compiled.
> 
> It would be nice if Lazarus IDE has an option to show unfiltered output
> in the Messages window, but I haven't figured out if this is possible or
> now. Older versions of Lazarus use do do that.

Right Click / Filter*


Mattias

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

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

[Graeme Geldenhuys]

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 totally optional and NOT used by default in
AggPas at all. So yes it is fine being there.

Regards,
  Graeme

-- 
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/

My public PGP key:  http://tinyurl.com/graeme-pgp

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus

Re: [Lazarus] How to play audio from memory.

[Graeme Geldenhuys]

On 2016-05-16 22:37, Donald Ziesig wrote:
> Unfortunately, the version I have on the Pi doesn't have the units for 
> openssl and fpopenssl.

I doubt it is UOS that needs those dependencies. They have nothing to do
with Sound, but rather Encryption and Security. It is most likely
something in your project pulling in those dependencies.

> the code tree that references those units.  Do you know if Lazarus has a 
> way to show the units used when a compilation fails?

Do a Build All instead of a standard Compile. Then right click in the
IDE's Messages window and select "Copy -> Copy All Messages". Paste the
clipboard to some text editor and review all the units compiled.

It would be nice if Lazarus IDE has an option to show unfiltered output
in the Messages window, but I haven't figured out if this is possible or
now. Older versions of Lazarus use do do that.

Regards,
  Graeme

-- 
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/

My public PGP key:  http://tinyurl.com/graeme-pgp

--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus