[Lazarus] Ide add-ons licensing issue

Sven Barth pascaldragon at googlemail.com
Sat Feb 23 17:45:20 CET 2013


On 23.02.2013 17:36, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
>>>
>>> But what if we have some packages, which are not only run-time, but
>>> also design-time, and which we must deploy in order to make our
>>> customer able to recompile the program?
>>>
>>> They're not of general interest, so it doesn't make sense to
>>> contribute them to the Lazarus community (with one of them I tried,
>>> but it was rejected, as too specific). They're just in our hands, and
>>> they must be added to Lazarus IDE just for our applications.
>>>
>>> Common sense tells me that they should GPL'd too, but I'd like to be
>>> comforted by a knowledgeable opinion.
>>
>> Depends on what  your package depends on.
>>
>> Most packages that integrate into the IDE use IdeIntf (and LCL, FCL ,ect).
>>
>> IdeIntf is also LGPL.
>>
>> If so, your package can be any license you like.
>>
>> At least if you distribute it stand alone
>>
>> However if you BUNDLE it with the IDE it may differ, because then it
>> becomes part of a bundle containing GPL stuff.
>>
> Agreed with everything Martin said, except I'm not sure about the
> bundling. AFAIK/AFAIR, you may perfectly legally distribute Lazarus
> exe+(a link to the) source code etc while adding your own other licensed
> programs.
> Linking in GPL code is a different story though.
>
> See e.g.
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10305866/okay-to-distribute-gpl-program-with-commercial-product-in-the-same-installer

The problem of the original poster are IDE design time packages, not 
extra programs. Thus it's about linking and there I agree with Martin 
(though I'm no lawyer either...).

Regards,
Sven




More information about the Lazarus mailing list