[Lazarus] components\aggpas\gpc - non-commercial use only

[Mattias Gaertner]

On Tue, 17 May 2016 23:07:38 +0300
Denis Kozlov <dezlov at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 17 May 2016 at 16:34, Mattias Gaertner <nc-gaertnma at netcologne.de> wrote:
> 
> >
> > For Debian maintainers and other third party bundles we should gather
> > the abbreviated license information in the components/readme.txt, so
> > they can easier pick the cherries.
> >
> 
> It's not a bad idea.
> 
> Maybe we can go even a step further, to avoid duplication and introduce
> some consistency:
> 
> 1) Document licensing terms in *.lpk files of each package (making it
> mandatory for all future packages).

It always was. If a lpk is missing its license, please report the bug.

> 2) Use 2 licensing attributes/nodes in *.lpk files:
>     A) License Title (e.g. "GPL", "LGPL", "MPL", "MIT", "BSD" ... "Custom"
> - so that it can be easily enumerated and summarized);

What about double licensing (e.g. "GPL2 or higher", "MPL or LGPL2 with
liking exception") or part (e.g. "LGPL-2, except gpc.pas which has
custom license")?

>     B) License Description (i.e. this can be the full license text, in case
> of "Custom" licensing terms)
> 3) Create IDE tools to summarize licensing terms of:
>    A) Currently installed packages,
>    B) All available packages,

This info can be shown in "Package Graph" and "Install Packages" in the
memo. Read this: you don't need a new dialog for this.

>    C) Packages used in the current project (if possible)

This info can be shown in the Project Inspector. Read this: you don't
need a new dialog for this.


> If this is suitable, I volunteer to analyze licensing terms of existing
> packages and implement the work above.

Thanks.

Mattias