On Jan 16, 2008 2:42 PM, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The suspect routines are mostly in the classes unit. > In the component streaming system, to be exact. This code is of course > available in the GPL-ed CLX... Note also that the CLX is under some kind > of dual license: GPL or the Borland license. Which license is used depends > on the software engineer, if I understand correctly.
I took a look at Borland's license distributed with Kylix. That is one bizarre creature. They go through all kinds of contortions to make it "dual licensed". I don't think the GPL part qualifies as a GPL license at all, actually. I think they felt backed into a corner by having to use Qt on linux and had to include some kind of GPL license because of that but at the same time wanted to keep as much control as they could. Anyway, the "dual license" itself is kind of irrelevant since each source file in the CLX contains it's own copyright notice and specifically states "This file may be distributed and/or modified under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation". Even if Kylix contained a more convoluted license in general, since each source file contains that notice, the GPLv2 covers the source in each file that notice is in. Anyway, it's all a fairly moot point now (or soon will be). > Regardless of this, we do not wish to be suspected of using Borland's > code, and therefor decided to play it safe and recode the routines > anyway. I cannot stress this enough. > I agree completely with this. As an attorney, I like to make arguments and debate things and explore nooks and crannies. But I agree that it is best to have completely "pure" code in FPC, so that no Borland/CodeGear fanboy can make any claim, unfounded or not, about FPC "stealing" from CodeGear. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
