Date sent: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 15:04:21 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Doodle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Sibyl] Answers needed
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > What were the exact license conditions
> > for the original Sibyl sources (as set by the former SpeedSoft
> > owner)? I'm asking so, because I know he made the sources available
> > for download, but I have never seen any document describing the
> > legal status of these sources.
.
.
> This if for the IDE part. I don't know about the RTL and other
> components...
RTL and components are very important as well, however. If the IDE
is under GPL, it's absolutely fine. However, it would be bad having a
compiler product that can only compile GPLed products (I don't have
any problem with that myself, but it would severly limit potential
users of such product); therefore RTL should fall under some more
relaxed license, making it possible to create commercial and closed
source applications as well.
Anyway - I've downloaded the sources from CVS now. If the original
sources were already packed together with "copying" and "copying.lib"
documents, and all source files have the header from SpeedSoft header
mentioning the [L]GPL status, the status should be probably clear. It
would be still better to get a confirmation from SpeedSoft people for
putting the RTL files under the FPC modified LGPL license, so that we
can directly include them (or their parts) into FPC RTL.
Another question - what we really have now? I suspect this is
probably clear to all other mailing list members, but I've just
joined this list (as a FPC OS/2 port maintainer). A full-featured IDE
with an integrated compiler, (dis-)assembler and debugger (I can see
things like "compiler.pas", "dasm.pas", "dbg*.pas", etc., in /svde)?
Yuri wrote something about missing compiler sources - does this only
apply to a standalone compiler?
Tomas
-----------
To unsubscribe yourself from this list, send the following message
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsubscribe sibyl
end
