I just received the following email from the FreePascal guys.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the licensing issue?

-------- Original Message --------

Hello Dominique,

We are considering to include a subset of JEDI-SDL in FPC SVN. However,
there are a few issues with licensing. FPC libraries are licensed under
LGPL plus a static linking exception, while JEDI-SDL is MPL. Preferable
we need to include it under the same license. It is believed by some that
the MPL is even incompatible with the LGPL, which would make it even
illegal to use JEDI-SDL itself, since the SDL library it links to is
licensed under the LGPL. Do you think it would be possible to double
license JEDI-SDL or at least a subset of it?

Greetings,

Daniël Mantione

Op Sun, 11 Mar 2007, schreef Evgeniy Ivanov:

> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:12:32 +0300, Jonas Maebe < jonas.maebe%40elis.ugent.be">jonas.maebeelis.ugent.be>
> wrote:
&gt;
>
> >
> > Are the licensing issues sorted out for it? If not, there may be a
> > problem since standard MPL is incompatible with GPL (so people can't
&gt; > release GPL programs using those bindings). I don't know about the LGPL
>; > (and how our static linking exception affects this).
&gt; >
>
> As far as I know if somebody uses MPL the product based on MPL must be only
>; MPL.
>;
> MPL is incompatible with LGPL too.
>;
> http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html
&gt;
> There is a way to use a triple license. But as I understood we need to make
>; all FPC code licenced as MPL/LGPL because one module uses MPL code. It is
> not the way.
>; So, if we want to have sdlgraph there are 3 ways:
&gt; - rewrite needed SDL headers
> - write SDL initialization and few base function for SDL in C and then make
>; headers for pascal
&gt; - speak with JEDI-SDL developer. But I don't know if he relized it under MPL
> has he right to give such permission

--
Dominique Louis
Savage Software Solutions - Software with Byte
http://www.SavageSoftware.com.au/store/

Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

Hey Dom,
I'm pretty much out of the pascal stuff these days. The code that I did
for stream passing for bitmaps, can go to whatever license you want.
Consider it yours.

Chris Bruner

Dominique Louis wrote:
&gt;
> I just received the following email from the FreePascal guys.
&gt;
> Does anyone have any thoughts on the licensing issue?
&gt;
> -------- Original Message --------
>
>; Hello Dominique,
>
&gt; We are considering to include a subset of JEDI-SDL in FPC SVN. However,
> there are a few issues with licensing. FPC libraries are licensed under
&gt; LGPL plus a static linking exception, while JEDI-SDL is MPL. Preferable
> we need to include it under the same license. It is believed by some that
>; the MPL is even incompatible with the LGPL, which would make it even
>; illegal to use JEDI-SDL itself, since the SDL library it links to is
> licensed under the LGPL. Do you think it would be possible to double
&gt; license JEDI-SDL or at least a subset of it?
>
> Greetings,
>
&gt; Daniël Mantione
>
>; Op Sun, 11 Mar 2007, schreef Evgeniy Ivanov:
>
> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:12:32 +0300, Jonas Maebe
> < jonas.maebe%40elis.ugent.be">jonas.maebeelis.ugent.be <mailto:jonas.maebe%40elis.ugent.be>;>
&gt; > wrote:
&gt; >
>; >
>; > >
>; > > Are the licensing issues sorted out for it? If not, there may be a
> > > problem since standard MPL is incompatible with GPL (so people can't
&gt; > > release GPL programs using those bindings). I don't know about the
> LGPL
>; > > (and how our static linking exception affects this).
&gt; > >
>; >
>; > As far as I know if somebody uses MPL the product based on MPL must
> be only
>; > MPL.
>; >
>; > MPL is incompatible with LGPL too.
>; >
>; > http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html
> <http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html>
> >
>; > There is a way to use a triple license. But as I understood we need
> to make
>; > all FPC code licenced as MPL/LGPL because one module uses MPL code.
> It is
> > not the way.
>; > So, if we want to have sdlgraph there are 3 ways:
&gt; > - rewrite needed SDL headers
> > - write SDL initialization and few base function for SDL in C and
> then make
>; > headers for pascal
&gt; > - speak with JEDI-SDL developer. But I don't know if he relized it
> under MPL
> > has he right to give such permission
>
&gt; --
> Dominique Louis
&gt; Savage Software Solutions - Software with Byte
>; http://www.SavageSoftware.com.au/store/
> <http://www.SavageSoftware.com.au/store/&gt;
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Messages in this topic (2) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.

Why was the MPL license chosen? And why not the LGPL?

-----Original Message-----
From: JEDI-SDL%40yahoogroups.com">JEDI-SDLyahoogroups.com [mailto: JEDI-SDL%40yahoogroups.com">JEDI-SDLyahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dominique Louis
Sent: 12 March 2007 01:36 AM
To: JEDI-SDL%40yahoogroups.com">JEDI-SDLyahoogroups.com
Subject: [JEDI-SDL] [Fwd: JEDI-SDL licensing]

I just received the following email from the FreePascal guys.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the licensing issue?

-------- Original Message --------

Hello Dominique,

We are considering to include a subset of JEDI-SDL in FPC SVN. However,
there are a few issues with licensing. FPC libraries are licensed under
LGPL plus a static linking exception, while JEDI-SDL is MPL. Preferable
we need to include it under the same license. It is believed by some that
the MPL is even incompatible with the LGPL, which would make it even
illegal to use JEDI-SDL itself, since the SDL library it links to is
licensed under the LGPL. Do you think it would be possible to double
license JEDI-SDL or at least a subset of it?

Greetings,

Daniël Mantione

Op Sun, 11 Mar 2007, schreef Evgeniy Ivanov:

> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:12:32 +0300, Jonas Maebe < jonas.maebe%40elis.ugent.be">jonas.maebeelis.ugent.be>
> wrote:
&gt;
>
> >
> > Are the licensing issues sorted out for it? If not, there may be a
> > problem since standard MPL is incompatible with GPL (so people can't
&gt; > release GPL programs using those bindings). I don't know about the LGPL
>; > (and how our static linking exception affects this).
&gt; >
>
> As far as I know if somebody uses MPL the product based on MPL must be only
>; MPL.
>;
> MPL is incompatible with LGPL too.
>;
> http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html
&gt;
> There is a way to use a triple license. But as I understood we need to make
>; all FPC code licenced as MPL/LGPL because one module uses MPL code. It is
> not the way.
>; So, if we want to have sdlgraph there are 3 ways:
&gt; - rewrite needed SDL headers
> - write SDL initialization and few base function for SDL in C and then make
>; headers for pascal
&gt; - speak with JEDI-SDL developer. But I don't know if he relized it under MPL
> has he right to give such permission

--
Dominique Louis
Savage Software Solutions - Software with Byte
http://www.SavageSoftware.com.au/store/

Yahoo! Groups Links

DISCLAIMER:
Everything in this email and its attachments relating to the official business of arivia.kom is proprietary to arivia.kom. It is confidential, legally privileged and protected by law. The person addressed in the email is the sole authorised recipient. Any unauthorized dissemination or copying of this e-mail (or any attachment to this e-mail) or the wrongful disclosure of the information herein contained is prohibited.

Messages in this topic (4) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

.