Misunderstandings seem to be common as written in a recent DistroWatch article by Jesse Smith.
Myths and Misunderstandings: GPL
http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20150518#myth
(
IMHO that is just pro GPL FUD, inducing deliberate misunderstanding to obscure the issues. Basically the post has a pattern where perceived issue with GPL is considered not true , because there is one limited exception to it.
A sane person would conclude that the issues are grosso modo true then, but in their twisted mind that negates the issues and fixes the GPL.
It's like saying that it is ok that a car doesn't drive because you can tow it.
E.g.
- you can charge anything for a program, but are still required to ship source, and can't limit its redistribution. So charging any non trivial price is difficult.
- You don't have to distribute source if you are the only user. (read: you can't ship it)
Yes, these exceptions exist, but they don't fix GPL being a restrictive license.
etc etc.
)
Back on topic though, as long as you don't link to core FPC parts (the fpc
compiler source, the lazarus
IDE), you are pretty safe. FPC/Lazarus were specifically engineered to allow generating programs with a license that is permissable for a broad category of users (both home and enterprise)
Redistributing FPC/Lazarus itself is GPL, but as long as you don't link to parts that are not provided in ppu in the distribution (but only execute it), you are reasonably safe.