Re: [fpc-pascal] Name for our license

2009-06-22 Thread Joost van der Sluis
Op zaterdag 20-06-2009 om 16:25 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Jonas Maebe: > On 20 Jun 2009, at 16:15, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote: > > > Modified LGPL just isn't good enought, because it's not unique enough. > > Modified in which way? By who? > > > > I would like to have a name for our lice

Re: [fpc-pascal] Name for our license

2009-06-21 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
Marco van de Voort wrote: No it does not, I think. It just says that the same process to construct LGPL3 from GPL3 is made as was to make LGPL2 from GPL2. Ah yes, I see what you mean. I read it to quickly and misunderstood the overall meaning. My bad. :-( Regards, - Graeme - __

Re: [fpc-pascal] Name for our license

2009-06-21 Thread Jonas Maebe
On 21 Jun 2009, at 19:14, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: I to honest I do not understand the ins and outs of the various licenses, but I read the following on the wikipedia site. The the following (below) mean that LGPL v3 license is similar to the "modified LGPL v2" that FPC and Lazarus use? I

Re: [fpc-pascal] Name for our license

2009-06-21 Thread Marco van de Voort
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said: > > Library from Free Pascal" or "The same license as the Lazarus > > Component Library". > > I to honest I do not understand the ins and outs of the various licenses, > but I read the following on the wikipedia site. The the following (below) > mea

Re: [fpc-pascal] Name for our license

2009-06-21 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote: ackward need to use expressions like "the same license as the Runtime Library from Free Pascal" or "The same license as the Lazarus Component Library". I to honest I do not understand the ins and outs of the various licenses, but I read the following on the w

Re: [fpc-pascal] Name for our license

2009-06-21 Thread Graeme Geldenhuys
Jonas Maebe wrote: * Free Pascal LGPL --> shortened to FPLGPL I think that would be a bad name, because a) there is nothing specific to the FPC project about this license Felipe, I like the idea, but I have to agree with Jonas. I work on a few projects and some use the "modified lgpl" licen

Re: [fpc-pascal] Name for our license

2009-06-20 Thread Jürgen Hestermann
* Free Pascal LGPL --> shortened to FPLGPL I don't like acronyms, especially if they are more than 3 letters long. Why not simply name it "Free Pascal Licence"? Jürgen Hestermann. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://li

Re: [fpc-pascal] Name for our license

2009-06-20 Thread Marco van de Voort
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said: > I think that would be a bad name, because > a) there is nothing specific to the FPC project about this license > b) many other projects also use this form of licensing (just google > for "lgpl static linking exception" without the quotes) > > Simply "

Re: [fpc-pascal] Name for our license

2009-06-20 Thread Jonas Maebe
On 20 Jun 2009, at 16:15, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote: Modified LGPL just isn't good enought, because it's not unique enough. Modified in which way? By who? I would like to have a name for our license, what do you think? I suggest: * Free Pascal LGPL --> shortened to FPLGPL I think

[fpc-pascal] Name for our license

2009-06-20 Thread Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
Hello, Often I need to tell anyone it's a good option to use the license from the FPC RTL, but this license has no unique name, which leads to the ackward need to use expressions like "the same license as the Runtime Library from Free Pascal" or "The same license as the Lazarus Component Library".