On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Kornel Kisielewicz wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt napisa(a):
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, L505 wrote:
What does 'advertise' mean in this context ?
Take a look at Stallman's page about FreeBSD license and how freebsd
"advertises
Berkley and California unreasonably" or whatever. Personally I'm more of a
FreeBSD
style guy and I might even switch to FreeBSD over linux because of
religion.
That page is a load of b*s*, because the LGPL requires just the same:
your program must show the LGPL.
Nitpicking pure style. It's the spirit of the license that counts:
Free software must remain free, and you must give credit where it's due.
The rest is food for lawyers without work.
Ugh, sorry to drop into this thread, but that reminded me of a problem I
have. I'm not much oriented in licences, hence I ask your help -- I created a
collection of FPC units, game-dev oriented, and I wanted to release them to
the public for I (and maybe only myself ^_^) think they might be useful for
others. After little tought I decided on LGPL - but a friend of mine brought
to my attention, that people using the library will still be forced to open
their sources if using my library -- which is not what I wanted.
The FPC license explicitly allows this.
What I want is to allow true freedom of using that library -- eg. for a
closed-source commercial product too. The only thing I would like is that I
am given credit for my work -- if a game uses the libraries, I want to be
noted somewhere.
I heard something about the FPC RTL licence -- maybe thats the type of
licence I need? Also, what would you guys suggest?
You can use the FPC RTL license for that. It is LGPL, but explicitly
allows the use in closed-source software.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
