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 cherrie
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 a
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
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
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.fre
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.or
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
> 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
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. The
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
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?
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.c
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
r
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 though
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 co
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 alre
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
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
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
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
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 te
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 al
On 17.05.2016 10:01, Denis Kozlov wrote:
On 17 May 2016 at 10:15, Graeme Geldenhuys
mailto:mailingli...@geldenhuys.co.uk>>
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.
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 L
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 Option
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 tot
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
