[fpc-other] [fpc-pascal] Announces & License question

[Jonas Maebe]

[moving to FPC-other]

On 28 Feb 2014, at 13:10, Marco van de Voort wrote:

> In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
>> At least all of our own source code is (L)GPL2+, so it shouldn't  
>> cause
>> problems.
>
> Not compatible to our license, but compatible to being included in
> collections with uniform license like ours. Nothing legal, just a  
> practical
> remark against the proliferation of licenses.
>
> A proliferation of licenses makes making collections with one such  
> statement
> difficult.  And specially if the difference in two such licenses is  
> small,
> it is IMHO better conform to something already used.

Well, there are some important differences, such as the fact that the  
GPLv3 is no longer worded in terms of US law and that while you are  
allowed to implement DRM using GPLv3-covered code, you cannot use the  
provisions of DRM-specific laws (such as the EU Copyright Directive  
and the DMCA) to forbid others from reverse-engineering/circumventing  
it.

>> I guess you mean "not"? In any case, GPLv3 also offers some  
>> protection
>> against (or rather, offence against) software patents.
>
> I know that was the intention of GPLv3, but I don't what came of it,  
> and how
> practical (or limiting) it is.

See the section "patents" in http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl3-final-rationale.pdf 
  . In short:
a) you give anyone a perpetual patent license on any patents you may  
hold required to use the code
b) if anyone else ever enforces a patent allegedly applying to the  
code to someone else, they use all rights to use the code
c) the GPLv3, unlike the GPLv2, is compatible with other open source/ 
free software licenses that contain "patent retaliation" clauses


Jonas