[fpc-pascal]Errors in your FAQ?

Florian Klaempfl florian at klaempfl.de
Sun Apr 14 11:08:54 CEST 2002

At 10:40 14.04.02 +0200, you wrote:
>I'm just reading your new FAQ and I think that there are some things,
>that stay unclear.
>- 1.4
>You wrote something about a "modified [...] LGPL" (the following is
>also unclear). But on the main page you wrote "modified GPL".
>You wrote "It is therefore possible to create commercial
>software [...]". This suggests, that this is what the modification
>sais. But the GPL and the LGPL both permit creation of commercial
>Did you perhaps mean "proprietary software"?
>Or you could also write "ClosedSource software" which makes it even
>more clear.

Closed software is a very new term which wasn't know when this FAQ
was initally wriiten :)
But Closed Source is probably the correct term: you may statically
link the FPC run time library to your Closed Source application.
Which isn't allowed by the LGPL though someone mentioned somewhere
some time ago :), that RMS said that there is no difference between
static and dynamic linking regarding the LPGL and legal issues.

The reason for the modification
is simple: go32v2 has no full featured dynamically linked
solution, the win dlls are a mess, and for for the linux .so system
FPC misses the PIC support thus we decided to allow static linking
of the FPC run time library with "proprietary software". But as
I said above, I don't know if it makes a difference.

>BTW. why modifying the LGPL? What about putting the RTL under a BSD

BSD is too lax for me. 

More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list