Jonas jonas at zeus.rug.ac.be
Wed May 9 12:39:18 CEST 2001

On woensdag, mei 9, 2001, at 01:36 , Neil Graham wrote:

>> We know. Actually, the GPL is a problem, since it explicitly forbids
>> development of commercial applications. the FPC license does.

The GPL doesn't forbid the writing of commercial programs, but of closed 
source programs. That's not the same (there are plenty of free closed 
source programs, though the reverse doesn't happen that much).

> If I were to make an IDE and code libraries designed for game making, 
> could
> I sell a bundle containing these and freepascal?

You libraries would be no problem, but the IDE is  something else. The 
GPL says that all "derived" works of a GPL'd piece of code have to be 
released under the GPL as well. The problem is that no-one really knows 
what is derived and what not. That's one of the reasons why Apple 
includes no *crucial* GPL'd tools with Mac OS X. Otherwise, RMS could 
decide that because for the OS to be able to function, it requires some 
piece of  GPL'd code, that the whole OS falls under the GPL...

Personally, I wouldn't mind at all if someone would write a closed 
source IDE for FPC (and I don't think anyone else would either, in fact, 
I think there are already some), it's just that GPL is very viral in 
nature and that you have to be careful for open source fanatics in this 

And as I said, the "derived" part is not strictly defined anywhere, so 
it's very well possible to interpret it so that an IDE which doesn't 
share any code with the compiler isn't a derived work.


More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list