At 10:23 +0100 21/3/06, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Peter N Lewis wrote:
So that probably means notices in the About box. It's not clear how the version information for the bundle, which includes a tiny amount of space for a copyright, would be affected - it couldn't include it, yet it might be interpreted that it must include it.
I'm not sure what you mean by the latter. What do you mean by "version information for the bundle"? If it's something that the program displays, then yes, it seems it must include the LGPL copyright (but why couldn't it?), otherwise I don't think it must.
Thats why its gray. The program includes an info string which is a copyright notice, which is displayed by the system (Finder) in response to the Get Info for the application. Technically, its not displayed "by the program", but it is part of the program, and its a copyright notice, and its displayed as the program. But it's very small, not enough room for multiple copyright notices.
I don't really object to licenses and copyright notices in the docs, especially for a real LGPL library, but I don't believe just using the RTS of the compiler should have such requirements.
Actually I think we all agree here.
Yup.
Mind you, at least there is no equivalent to the OpenSSL press release debacle.
Which debacle?
They require two different notices to be included in any press release:
*** This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. http://www.openssl.org/
This product includes cryptographic software written by Eric Young (eay@cryptsoft.com) ***
There is very good reasons for static linking the RTS to not bring in any part of the GPL or LGPL license.
That might be a misunderstanding. If the RTS were under the plain (L)GPL, then its conditions would also (or especially) apply with static linking.
Yes, absolutely. Which is why I'm glad there is an exception for linking to the GPC RTS. I'll have to go and read the FPC RTS license, since if it really is LGPL-like, depending on what the differences are that may be a reason to use GPC over FPC.
No, I don't think so. (Though, of course, I think there are other reasons to use GPC over FPC. :-) For the license issue, both seem to have rather similar effects.
Good to know, it'd be a shame if license issues were a reason for making the decision (and I agree, I think there are lots of good reasons to use GPC over FPC, but it's nice to have FPC too). Peter.