[Lazarus] [OT] About licences

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Lazarus] [OT] About licences

Kjow
Hi all,

I need some help to understand the licences world, probably due my not
English origins I have some difficulties to understand the terms of
various licences and their relating limitations.
Do you know a simple and clear site that explain all terms in few words?

e.g. (these are only explicative projects):
- Lazarus is under LGPL, I understood that I can use it to make also
commercial products without costs (of course, if/when I start earn
money I'll donate to community :) ).

- GLScene is under MPL, I understood that I can use it to make also
commercial products without costs, but I need to mention somewhere on
my product that I developed it with GLScene. My code could be closed,
but I modify glscene code I should release it.

- Audorra is under MPL 1.1, I don't understood the differences between
GLScene and Audorra licences. In their site is reported:

"Audorra is licensed under the MPL 1.1. Because this license is
incompatible to the common open source license "GPL", you may use the
project under the GPL or LGPL.
Please remember: When linking against libraries, which are licensed
under the GPL (like Acinerella), your project automatically falls
under the same license. "

What this means? If I use Audorra with Lazarus+GLScene I need to
release my project with GPL or LGPL licence?
(PS I tried audorra and it uses acinerella.dll to reproduce sounds)

So:

- Acinerella is under GPL, I don't understood very well what this
means... Using a product under GPL it must remain under GPL/open
source/no-commercial?

And what about other common licences?

An other question:

if I want to protect my closed-source software, is it enough to place
a my own "hand-wrote" disclaimer, or I need to register it somewhere?

Thank you,
Kjow

PS I mean only a legal-oriented question, not a moral one. I'll donate
for sure to all project that will permit me to earn money (if I will
:p ) and I'll mention all of these into credits and into the eventual
website. But for this I need to know how I can do all in a legal
way...

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] About licences

Marco van de Voort
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 02:43:45PM +0100, Kjow wrote:
> I need some help to understand the licences world, probably due my not
> English origins I have some difficulties to understand the terms of
> various licences and their relating limitations.
> Do you know a simple and clear site that explain all terms in few words?
>
> e.g. (these are only explicative projects):
> - Lazarus is under LGPL, I understood that I can use it to make also
> commercial products without costs (of course, if/when I start earn
> money I'll donate to community :) ).

Lazarus (the IDE) is under GPL, LCL and other libraries are under
LGPL-with-exception.  Same for FPC, compiler GPL, libs under
LGPL-with-exception.
 
> - GLScene is under MPL, I understood that I can use it to make also
> commercial products without costs, but I need to mention somewhere on
> my product that I developed it with GLScene. My code could be closed,
> but I modify glscene code I should release it.

If I understood it correctly, MPL is pretty much a corporate wording of the
LGPL.

MPL is incompatible with GPL/LGPL, but since Lazarus/FPC use
LGPL-with-exception, I don't know if that still creates a problem, since
that exception essentially defangs the copyleft.

> - Audorra is under MPL 1.1, I don't understood the differences between
> GLScene and Audorra licences. In their site is reported:
>
> "Audorra is licensed under the MPL 1.1. Because this license is
> incompatible to the common open source license "GPL", you may use the
> project under the GPL or LGPL.
> Please remember: When linking against libraries, which are licensed
> under the GPL (like Acinerella), your project automatically falls
> under the same license. "

Lazarus and FPC do not contain GPLed library code themselves. (but they
might provide headers to libs that do).

The only problem is designtime code. This links into the IDE, and thus
touched the GPL. However, the GPL only activates on distribution, so unless
you plan to release Lazarus with MPL stuff preinstalled, there is no
problem.
 
> What this means? If I use Audorra with Lazarus+GLScene I need to
> release my project with GPL or LGPL licence?
> (PS I tried audorra and it uses acinerella.dll to reproduce sounds)

Both LGPL and MPL only pertain to the bits that they apply to, not to the
rest of the project.

The GPL is different, and the ancinerella bit is a big issue, which would
make the whole thing GPL. (there are some exceptions though)


See also http://wiki.freepascal.org/licensing

> - Acinerella is under GPL, I don't understood very well what this
> means... Using a product under GPL it must remain under GPL/open
> source/no-commercial?

There are a million writeups on the web more verbose and complete than I can
repeat here.
 
> if I want to protect my closed-source software, is it enough to place
> a my own "hand-wrote" disclaimer, or I need to register it somewhere?

No, copyright is automatic. Just claim you wrote it in the header, that
should be enough. (and afaik that is not even necessary, but makes disputes
easier)

> PS I mean only a legal-oriented question, not a moral one. I'll donate
> for sure to all project that will permit me to earn money (if I will
> :p ) and I'll mention all of these into credits and into the eventual
> website. But for this I need to know how I can do all in a legal
> way...

Afaik Lazarus/FPC does not force credits at all. (but it is good practice to
do so).

The exact details about advocacy clauses in MPL, I don't know.

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] About licences

Dejan Boras
On 26.3.2011 15:14, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> The only problem is designtime code. This links into the IDE, and thus
> touched the GPL. However, the GPL only activates on distribution, so unless
> you plan to release Lazarus with MPL stuff preinstalled, there is no
> problem.

I don't think this is correct. The GPL does not cover output of a
program (e.g. code automatically created by the IDE). Only if the
program used code from the IDE (including IDE units into the program),
then it would fall under GPL. As far as I know, all a program needs is
the LCL, and should normally not include any code from the IDE.

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] About licences

Marco van de Voort
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 03:28:56PM +0100, de_jean_7777 wrote:

> On 26.3.2011 15:14, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > The only problem is designtime code. This links into the IDE, and thus
> > touched the GPL. However, the GPL only activates on distribution, so unless
> > you plan to release Lazarus with MPL stuff preinstalled, there is no
> > problem.
>
> I don't think this is correct. The GPL does not cover output of a
> program (e.g. code automatically created by the IDE). Only if the
> program used code from the IDE (including IDE units into the program),
> then it would fall under GPL. As far as I know, all a program needs is
> the LCL, and should normally not include any code from the IDE.

My bad. I formulated it incorrectly. I meant the designtime libraries of
components and everything they link to (which is quite often the main
library too). Not designtime generated code and/or .dfms.

Though the bit of redistributing lazarus might have hinted on that already.

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] About licences

Kjow
In reply to this post by Marco van de Voort
2011/3/26 Marco van de Voort <[hidden email]>:
> If I understood it correctly, MPL is pretty much a corporate wording of the
> LGPL.
>
> MPL is incompatible with GPL/LGPL, but since Lazarus/FPC use
> LGPL-with-exception, I don't know if that still creates a problem, since
> that exception essentially defangs the copyleft.

> Both LGPL and MPL only pertain to the bits that they apply to, not to the
> rest of the project.
>
> The GPL is different, and the ancinerella bit is a big issue, which would
> make the whole thing GPL. (there are some exceptions though)

Hi, I'm sorry for delay.
So, if I use LGPL/MPL products, but I don't modify headers or original
codes I should use they without problems in commercial/closed-source
projects, right?

About Audorra/Acinerella... how can be Audorra under MPL if the use of
acinerella make the project GPL?
So, if I use Audorra, that links acinerella, shouldn't be that
acinerella clauses apply only to audorra?

> No, copyright is automatic. Just claim you wrote it in the header, that
> should be enough. (and afaik that is not even necessary, but makes disputes
> easier)

Well, so I need only a my own disclaimer where I say that the software
is developed by me, that they can't use names or logos without
permissions and that advises users that they use my software at own
risks, blah blah, etc etc, right?

Thanks,
Kjow

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] About licences

José Mejuto
Hello Lazarus-List,

Tuesday, March 29, 2011, 10:25:38 AM, you wrote:

K> About Audorra/Acinerella... how can be Audorra under MPL if the use of
K> acinerella make the project GPL?
K> So, if I use Audorra, that links acinerella, shouldn't be that
K> acinerella clauses apply only to audorra?

The code belong to Audorra (own written code) is MPL/GPL/LGPL (you
choose), but when used with Acinerella everything is GPL only. If you
use Audorra with Acinerella your software is GPL too (mandatory due
viral activity of GPL).

They clearly shows in the web page:

Please remember: When linking against libraries, which are licensed
under the GPL (like Acinerella), your project automatically falls
under the same license.

--
Best regards,
 José


--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] About licences

Marco van de Voort
In reply to this post by Kjow
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:25:38AM +0200, Kjow wrote:
> > rest of the project.
> >
> > The GPL is different, and the ancinerella bit is a big issue, which would
> > make the whole thing GPL. (there are some exceptions though)
>
> Hi, I'm sorry for delay.
> So, if I use LGPL/MPL products, but I don't modify headers or original
> codes I should use they without problems in commercial/closed-source
> projects, right?

With MPL and LGPL you are officially obliged to donate fixes to the relevant
packages back. The (L)GPL with exception bit absolves you from that.
 
> About Audorra/Acinerella... how can be Audorra under MPL if the use of
> acinerella make the project GPL?

Because they are delivered as separate packages. The GPL is only invoked on
linking and then distributing it. IOW the one that does the final linking
(and the subsequent distribution) takes
on the obligations.

> Well, so I need only a my own disclaimer where I say that the software
> is developed by me, that they can't use names or logos without
> permissions and that advises users that they use my software at own
> risks, blah blah, etc etc, right?

Only if you distribute source.

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] About licences

Kjow
2011/3/29 Marco van de Voort <[hidden email]>:
> With MPL and LGPL you are officially obliged to donate fixes to the relevant
> packages back. The (L)GPL with exception bit absolves you from that.

I mean only products made with software MPL/LGPL (so a redistributable
build). Everytime I found a bug I will report (or if I can fix) to
comunity, of course (this is mainly a moral thing :) ), but I don't
want to make a fork or a my own version:

I'm developing with lazarus a project, I'll try to commercialize this
project, but I can't make it open-source, at least at the beginning.

> Because they are delivered as separate packages. The GPL is only invoked on
> linking and then distributing it. IOW the one that does the final linking
> (and the subsequent distribution) takes
> on the obligations.

Perfect, I understood.

> Only if you distribute source.

And if I don't distribuite source, nothing?

Thanks,
Kjow

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] About licences

Kjow
In reply to this post by José Mejuto
2011/3/29 José Mejuto <[hidden email]>:

> The code belong to Audorra (own written code) is MPL/GPL/LGPL (you
> choose), but when used with Acinerella everything is GPL only. If you
> use Audorra with Acinerella your software is GPL too (mandatory due
> viral activity of GPL).
>
> They clearly shows in the web page:
>
> Please remember: When linking against libraries, which are licensed
> under the GPL (like Acinerella), your project automatically falls
> under the same license.

Ok, thanks.
Kjow

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] About licences

Marco van de Voort
In reply to this post by Kjow
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 09:35:37PM +0200, Kjow wrote:
> > (and the subsequent distribution) takes
> > on the obligations.
>
> Perfect, I understood.
>
> > Only if you distribute source.
>
> And if I don't distribuite source, nothing?

If you provide binaries, strictly speaking you must provide the source for
the MPL/LGPL modules + your changes to them on request (but not your own
parts).  But you can charge a commercial packaging fee (say $50) for that,
to keep away the non serious people.

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] About licences

Graeme Geldenhuys
In reply to this post by Marco van de Voort
On 29/03/2011 21:15, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> With MPL and LGPL you are officially obliged to donate fixes to the relevant
> packages back.

Correct.


> The (L)GPL with exception bit absolves you from that.

Where does it say that? By "LGPL with exception", I gather you mean like
the license used by FPC? It that case, there is only a "static linking
exception". You are still required to donate all modifications to the
LGPL code though, just like the vanilla LGPL license.



Regards,
   - Graeme -

--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/


--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] About licences

Marco van de Voort
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:23:12AM +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> > The (L)GPL with exception bit absolves you from that.
>
> Where does it say that? By "LGPL with exception", I gather you mean like
> the license used by FPC? It that case, there is only a "static linking
> exception". You are still required to donate all modifications to the
> LGPL code though, just like the vanilla LGPL license.

My bad, you are entirely right. The exception absloves you from the clause
that forces dynlinking, not the OSS bits. I don't know what I was thinking.

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] About licences

Zaher Dirkey
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Marco van de Voort <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:23:12AM +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> > The (L)GPL with exception bit absolves you from that.
>
> Where does it say that? By "LGPL with exception", I gather you mean like
> the license used by FPC? It that case, there is only a "static linking
> exception". You are still required to donate all modifications to the
> LGPL code though, just like the vanilla LGPL license.

My bad, you are entirely right. The exception absloves you from the clause
that forces dynlinking, not the OSS bits. I don't know what I was thinking.


I always feel not free with all this free licenses.

Regards

--
Zaher Dirkey

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] About licences

wkitty42
On 3/30/2011 08:18, Zaher Dirkey wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Marco van de Voort <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:23:12AM +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>      > > The (L)GPL with exception bit absolves you from that.
>      >
>      > Where does it say that? By "LGPL with exception", I gather you mean like
>      > the license used by FPC? It that case, there is only a "static linking
>      > exception". You are still required to donate all modifications to the
>      > LGPL code though, just like the vanilla LGPL license.
>
>     My bad, you are entirely right. The exception absloves you from the clause
>     that forces dynlinking, not the OSS bits. I don't know what I was thinking.
>
>
> I always feel not free with all this free licenses.

my thoughts, too... for many years ;)

but then again, free beer might "cost" you a few hours labor of one sort or
another, too ;)

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] About licences

Florian Klämpfl
Am 31.03.2011 04:09, schrieb waldo kitty:

> On 3/30/2011 08:18, Zaher Dirkey wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Marco van de Voort <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>     On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:23:12AM +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>>      > > The (L)GPL with exception bit absolves you from that.
>>      >
>>      > Where does it say that? By "LGPL with exception", I gather you
>> mean like
>>      > the license used by FPC? It that case, there is only a "static
>> linking
>>      > exception". You are still required to donate all modifications
>> to the
>>      > LGPL code though, just like the vanilla LGPL license.
>>
>>     My bad, you are entirely right. The exception absloves you from
>> the clause
>>     that forces dynlinking, not the OSS bits. I don't know what I was
>> thinking.
>>
>>
>> I always feel not free with all this free licenses.
>
> my thoughts, too... for many years ;)

IMO but IANAL, the free is meant to keep the liberty of the sources but
it's not about that a user is free to do with the sources what he wants.

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] About licences

t.wieckowski
In reply to this post by Marco van de Voort
I'm wondering about one thing, Can I do (at all) application with
closed source, by Linux ?
I ask because I saw what dependencies the empty project have:

        linux-vdso.so.1 =>  (0x00007ffffcdff000)
        libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x00007ff3b58cd000)
        libX11.so.6 => /usr/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x00007ff3b5597000)
        libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0 (0x00007ff3b537a000)
        libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 (0x00007ff3b4d5c000)
        libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 (0x00007ff3b4aad000)
        libgobject-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0 (0x00007ff3b4860000)
        libglib-2.0.so.0 => /lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0x00007ff3b457e000)
        libgthread-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgthread-2.0.so.0 (0x00007ff3b4379000)
        libgmodule-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgmodule-2.0.so.0 (0x00007ff3b4174000)
        libpango-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpango-1.0.so.0 (0x00007ff3b3f2c000)
        libatk-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libatk-1.0.so.0 (0x00007ff3b3d0c000)
        libcairo.so.2 => /usr/lib/libcairo.so.2 (0x00007ff3b3a4f000)
        libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x00007ff3b384b000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x00007ff3b34c8000)
        /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007ff3b5b12000)
        libxcb.so.1 => /usr/lib/libxcb.so.1 (0x00007ff3b32aa000)
        libgio-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgio-2.0.so.0 (0x00007ff3b2f9f000)
        librt.so.1 => /lib/librt.so.1 (0x00007ff3b2d97000)
        libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x00007ff3b2b13000)
        libXext.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXext.so.6 (0x00007ff3b2901000)
        libXrender.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXrender.so.1 (0x00007ff3b26f7000)
        libXinerama.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXinerama.so.1 (0x00007ff3b24f3000)
        libXi.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXi.so.6 (0x00007ff3b22e3000)
        libXrandr.so.2 => /usr/lib/libXrandr.so.2 (0x00007ff3b20da000)
        libXcursor.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXcursor.so.1 (0x00007ff3b1ecf000)
        libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpangocairo-1.0.so.0 (0x00007ff3b1cc3000)
        libXcomposite.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXcomposite.so.1 (0x00007ff3b1ac0000)
        libXdamage.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXdamage.so.1 (0x00007ff3b18bc000)
        libXfixes.so.3 => /usr/lib/libXfixes.so.3 (0x00007ff3b16b6000)
        libpng12.so.0 => /lib/libpng12.so.0 (0x00007ff3b148f000)
        libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpangoft2-1.0.so.0 (0x00007ff3b1265000)
        libfreetype.so.6 => /usr/lib/libfreetype.so.6 (0x00007ff3b0fde000)
        libz.so.1 => /lib/libz.so.1 (0x00007ff3b0dc6000)
        libfontconfig.so.1 => /usr/lib/libfontconfig.so.1 (0x00007ff3b0b90000)
        libpcre.so.3 => /lib/libpcre.so.3 (0x00007ff3b095f000)
        libpixman-1.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpixman-1.so.0 (0x00007ff3b06ff000)
        libxcb-shm.so.0 => /usr/lib/libxcb-shm.so.0 (0x00007ff3b04fc000)
        libxcb-render.so.0 => /usr/lib/libxcb-render.so.0 (0x00007ff3b02f3000)
        libXau.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXau.so.6 (0x00007ff3b00ef000)
        libXdmcp.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXdmcp.so.6 (0x00007ff3afee9000)


best regards
Tomek

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] [LoL]About licences

Santiago A.
In reply to this post by Kjow

How to choose the right open source license:

http://f.cl.ly/items/2S3I123K113G3v2r1E2H/OSS%20License.png

--

Regards

Santiago
[hidden email]


--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] About licences

Marco van de Voort
In reply to this post by t.wieckowski
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 08:38:48AM +0200, [hidden email] wrote:
> I'm wondering about one thing, Can I do (at all) application with
> closed source, by Linux ?

Licensewise yes. Practically no, except when you only target specific long
lived commercial distributions (like RHEL). Because there is no unique Linux,
only several distinct distributions.

--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] About licences

Graeme Geldenhuys
In reply to this post by t.wieckowski
On 13/04/2011 08:38, [hidden email] wrote:
> I'm wondering about one thing, Can I do (at all) application with
> closed source, by Linux ?
> I ask because I saw what dependencies the empty project have:
>
> linux-vdso.so.1 =>  (0x00007ffffcdff000)
...[snip lots of dependencies]...


Yes of course, but in the case of desktop applications, as you have
realized, there is a huge dependency list. This is the negative aspect
of using the larger libraries like Qt, GTK etc... At some point you
application will stop working because a standard install of whatever
Linux distro might not supply the correct dependencies out of the box.

Alternatively, make sure you use a toolkit that has *much less
dependencies*. This is exactly why I started the fpGUI Toolkit project.
Our applications are very "lite" when it comes to dependencies, so have
a greater chance of still running many years from now. Even the reverse
is possible, we can run todays application on a ten year old Linux
distro without problems too (we actually tested this, using Suse 8 &
Suse 9).

Compare a default fpGUI application dependencies against what you
posted. This dependency can be further reduced by switching to non
anti-aliased fonts - but that just makes applications look ugly. :)


$ ldd project1
        linux-vdso.so.1
        libX11.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libX11.so.6
        libXft.so.2 => /usr/lib64/libXft.so.2
        libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6
        libfontconfig.so.1 => /usr/lib64/libfontconfig.so.1
        libxcb.so.1 => /usr/lib64/libxcb.so.1
        libdl.so.2 => /lib64/libdl.so.2
        libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1
        libfreetype.so.6 => /usr/lib64/freetype.../libfreetype.so.6
        libXrender.so.1 => /usr/lib64/libXrender.so.1
        /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
        libexpat.so.1 => /lib64/libexpat.so.1
        libXau.so.6 => /usr/lib64/libXau.so.6





Regards,
  - Graeme -

--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/


--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Lazarus] [OT] About licences

Graeme Geldenhuys
In reply to this post by t.wieckowski
On 13/04/2011 08:38, [hidden email] wrote:
> I'm wondering about one thing, Can I do (at all) application with
> closed source, by Linux ?
> I ask because I saw what dependencies the empty project have:


Interpreting your email slightly different to my previous reply. The
answer is again yes, you can create commercial closed-source apps for
Linux. Those dependencies you listed, are runtime dependencies, and not
staticly linked into your application. So the LGPL license allows you to
keep your application source code closed-sourced. This is exactly why
LGPL was created - giving you the freedom to use various LGPL licensed
libraries with ease, even in closed-source apps.


Regards,
  - Graeme -

--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/


--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus