Hi all,
I need some help to understand the licences world, probably due my not
English origins I have some difficulties to understand the terms of
various licences and their relating limitations.
Do you know a simple and clear site that explain all terms in few words?
e.g. (these are only explica
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 02:43:45PM +0100, Kjow wrote:
> I need some help to understand the licences world, probably due my not
> English origins I have some difficulties to understand the terms of
> various licences and their relating limitations.
> Do you know a simple and clear site that explain
On 26.3.2011 15:14, Marco van de Voort wrote:
The only problem is designtime code. This links into the IDE, and thus
touched the GPL. However, the GPL only activates on distribution, so unless
you plan to release Lazarus with MPL stuff preinstalled, there is no
problem.
I don't think this is co
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 03:28:56PM +0100, de_jean_ wrote:
> On 26.3.2011 15:14, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > The only problem is designtime code. This links into the IDE, and thus
> > touched the GPL. However, the GPL only activates on distribution, so unless
> > you plan to release Lazarus wi
2011/3/26 Marco van de Voort :
> If I understood it correctly, MPL is pretty much a corporate wording of the
> LGPL.
>
> MPL is incompatible with GPL/LGPL, but since Lazarus/FPC use
> LGPL-with-exception, I don't know if that still creates a problem, since
> that exception essentially defangs the c
Hello Lazarus-List,
Tuesday, March 29, 2011, 10:25:38 AM, you wrote:
K> About Audorra/Acinerella... how can be Audorra under MPL if the use of
K> acinerella make the project GPL?
K> So, if I use Audorra, that links acinerella, shouldn't be that
K> acinerella clauses apply only to audorra?
The co
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:25:38AM +0200, Kjow wrote:
> > rest of the project.
> >
> > The GPL is different, and the ancinerella bit is a big issue, which would
> > make the whole thing GPL. (there are some exceptions though)
>
> Hi, I'm sorry for delay.
> So, if I use LGPL/MPL products, but I don
2011/3/29 Marco van de Voort :
> With MPL and LGPL you are officially obliged to donate fixes to the relevant
> packages back. The (L)GPL with exception bit absolves you from that.
I mean only products made with software MPL/LGPL (so a redistributable
build). Everytime I found a bug I will report
2011/3/29 José Mejuto :
> The code belong to Audorra (own written code) is MPL/GPL/LGPL (you
> choose), but when used with Acinerella everything is GPL only. If you
> use Audorra with Acinerella your software is GPL too (mandatory due
> viral activity of GPL).
>
> They clearly shows in the web page
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 09:35:37PM +0200, Kjow wrote:
> > (and the subsequent distribution) takes
> > on the obligations.
>
> Perfect, I understood.
>
> > Only if you distribute source.
>
> And if I don't distribuite source, nothing?
If you provide binaries, strictly speaking you must provide t
On 29/03/2011 21:15, Marco van de Voort wrote:
With MPL and LGPL you are officially obliged to donate fixes to the relevant
packages back.
Correct.
The (L)GPL with exception bit absolves you from that.
Where does it say that? By "LGPL with exception", I gather you mean like
the license u
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:23:12AM +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> > The (L)GPL with exception bit absolves you from that.
>
> Where does it say that? By "LGPL with exception", I gather you mean like
> the license used by FPC? It that case, there is only a "static linking
> exception". You are
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:23:12AM +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> > > The (L)GPL with exception bit absolves you from that.
> >
> > Where does it say that? By "LGPL with exception", I gather you mean like
> > the license used by FPC?
On 3/30/2011 08:18, Zaher Dirkey wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:23:12AM +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> > The (L)GPL with exception bit absolves you from that.
>
> Where does it say that? By "LGPL with exception
Am 31.03.2011 04:09, schrieb waldo kitty:
> On 3/30/2011 08:18, Zaher Dirkey wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Marco van de Voort
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:23:12AM +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>> > > The (L)GPL with exception bit absolves you from that.
>>
I'm wondering about one thing, Can I do (at all) application with
closed source, by Linux ?
I ask because I saw what dependencies the empty project have:
linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7cdff000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x7ff3b58cd000)
libX11.so.6 => /us
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 08:38:48AM +0200, t.wieckow...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm wondering about one thing, Can I do (at all) application with
> closed source, by Linux ?
Licensewise yes. Practically no, except when you only target specific long
lived commercial distributions (like RHEL). Because the
On 13/04/2011 08:38, t.wieckow...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm wondering about one thing, Can I do (at all) application with
> closed source, by Linux ?
> I ask because I saw what dependencies the empty project have:
>
> linux-vdso.so.1 => (0x7cdff000)
...[snip lots of dependencies]...
On 13/04/2011 08:38, t.wieckow...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm wondering about one thing, Can I do (at all) application with
> closed source, by Linux ?
> I ask because I saw what dependencies the empty project have:
Interpreting your email slightly different to my previous reply. The
answer is again y
19 matches
Mail list logo
