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

[Denis Kozlov]

On 18 May 2016 at 01:13, Mattias Gaertner <nc-gaertnma at netcologne.de> wrote:

> > 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.
>

A quick search revealed that 73 out of 106 lpk files have a <License> tag,
as of r52328.


> > 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")?
>

I plan to write a tool to automatically extract licensing information from
all packages. Then, stick this information into a sheet for analysis, maybe
even put it on the Wiki for the reference.

The sheet will highlight packages which do not contain licensing terms and
allow to pick out the list of commonly used licensing abbreviations
(titles). This is were it should become clearer how many variations there
actually are ("GPL2 or higher", "MPL or LGPL2 with liking exception",
"LGPL-2, except gpc.pas which has custom license", etc).

For example, if there are 10 variations of licensing terms, a summarized
list of packages per licensing variation should be a good licensing
overview and significantly simplify slicing based on the licensing terms.

>     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.
>

I agree, these are good places for displaying licensing information.

P.S. I don't plan to reinvent wheels or add dialogs unnecessarily.

Denis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus-ide.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20160520/1d4b933d/attachment-0003.html>