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,
> 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