John L. Ries wrote:
I think it's time to take this particular argument offline.
Agreed. Since Rugxulo again failed to make any coherent argument, as I asked of him, I'll reply by PM.
To sum it up: Yes, there are crazy laws. Yes, people do crazy things. Yes, countries are different. Yes, in your own project you can do what you want, ignore laws and face the consequences. But stop suggesting to others to ignore the laws, when you don't have to bear the consequences. Sure, it's easy to say go ahead, all easy, blah blah, and if something goes wrong (even if unlikely), you can say: "Oops, sorry you lost your business and all. Didn't expect this, bye."
Just one thing that addresses Florian as well.
Rugxulo wrote:
"License
The packages and runtime library come under a modified Library GNU Public License to allow the use of static libraries when creating applications. The compiler source itself comes under the GNU General Public License. The sources for both the compiler and runtime library are available; the complete compiler is written in Pascal."
Notice that Florian has already said "it's mentioned in the source". My point was that it didn't seem to be mentioned in any of the other obvious places.
While I agree that the license could perhaps be stated a bit more clearly (-> Florian?), both on the web site and in the binaries (unless I missed something), that doesn't imply, as you claimed: "... probably because nobody cared!! To most people, free software / open source / GPL is probably "good enough" (all sounds the same)." Florian's previous reply should have shown you that they do care. (So stop assuming about other people's intentions, especially when those people are here and told you already.)
Frank