[fpc-pascal]Errors in your FAQ?

Marco van de Voort marcov at stack.nl
Sun Apr 14 12:29:09 CEST 2002

> 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.

Also it is a modified GPL, modified so that it resembles LGPL (license
is older than the L-GPL).
> 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
> >license?
> BSD is too lax for me. 

BSD adds opening of the source, and allows commercial parties to make fully
proprietary distributions of your systems.

More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list