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
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 -
__
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
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
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
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
* 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
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 "
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
