Follow-up Comment #4, task #16459 (project administration): [comment #3 comment #3:] > > With respect to one file, protocol.txt, I could use some advice. It is not part of the program per se, it is the protocol I wrote which the program implements. I'm not sure a protocol (which one does not want altered) is appropriate for GPL or FDL license. When there is more documentation, I can included the protocol as an invariant section. Until then, do you have a suggestion?
Let's start with clarifying why it can't be an invariant section. Do you have any ideas yourself? > FreePascal: https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/FPC_modified_LGPL > LGPL v2.0 with static library linking exception (similar to GCC and other runtime libraries). A page explaining their license and rationale is here: https://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/licensing Thank you! > a vanilla MIT license. It looks like we don't listen to each other. Too bad. > DIMime: I'm not using it as a library, so referencing it as such was not really correct. I modified and incorporated one file from it into my project. With the written permission of the author, I was able to license this file as GPL v3.0. That is noted in the file base64url.pas. Its history, original license and copyright, and current status are noted there. I'm not convinced the result of such integration is GPLv3-or-later-compatible. The notice only says, the file was allowed to be used in a package licensed under the GPL 3.0, and that allows for a range of interpretations, including the permission for private use only; and at any rate, it says nothing about the versions of the GPL higher than 3.0. > It was originally released under the MPL v1.1, which I understand that GNU considers GPL compatible Could you tell where the GNU Project says MPL v1.1 is GPL-compatible? _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.nongnu.org/task/?16459> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.nongnu.org/