End user license choice

[Alex Cones]

Hi 2 all!

Today I`m started to write manual to my project and need some bit help in license choice. In july of last year I asked about using Lazarus&Fpc in commercial project and received good news, that I can use Lazarus&Fpc in commercial projects with link to freepascal.org. For now I need to choice license.

I need to chock up next statements with user:

- You can use the project for non-commercial purposes free of charge and with any license, includes GPL.
- Commercial use of the project must be authorized by the author.
- You may not decompile or disassemble any part of the project.

It seems that's all. I will glad to listen any ideas.

[Blaazen]

If your project will be closed-source then you cannot use GPL which is open-source licence. (As well as MPL and others).

[Alex Cones]

Did you mean first point of my requirements? My project is framework then I means, that any programs, created with it can be with any license.

May be already have an existing license, which will good for me?

[marcov]

Hi 2 all!

Today I`m started to write manual to my project and need some bit help in license choice. In july of last year I asked about using Lazarus&Fpc in commercial project and received good news, that I can use Lazarus&Fpc in commercial projects with link to freepascal.org. For now I need to choice license.

I need to chock up next statements with user:

- You can use the project for non-commercial purposes free of charge and with any license, includes GPL.
- Commercial use of the project must be authorized by the author.
- You may not decompile or disassemble any part of the project.

I would study the Lazarus/FPC license text very carefully wrt the last bit. Since if they allow their parts to be decompiled, you are essentially revoking rights given by FPC, and doing that for code you are not the owner off. You can probably only claim that for the parts of the projects you actually wrote/own.

Note, I have never researched this before, it is just meant as a caution. Read the license test to be sure.

[Alex Cones]

Applications created by the compiler and using the runtime library come under a modified library gnu public license (LGPL), which permit no restriction on the type of license the application has. It is therefore possible to create closed source or proprietary software using Free Pascal.

This extra exception to the LGPL is added:
As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license terms of these independent modules, and to copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice, provided that you also meet, for each linked independent module, the terms and conditions of the license of that module. An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based on this library. If you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of the library, but you not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this exception statement from your version. Please note that you still have to comply to the LGPL, which, for example, requires you to provide the source code of the runtime library. If you want to write proprietary closed source software, please do this to comply:

    Most people can satisfy the source code requirement by mentioning the rtl source code can be downloaded at the Free Pascal web site: if you did not modify the rtl this is considered adequate to satisfy the LGPL requirement of providing source code.
    If you made modifications to the runtime library, you cannot keep them for yourself, you must make them available if requested.
    Distribute the LGPL license with your product.

The compiler source code, on the other hand, comes under the GNU Public license, which means that any usage of the compiler source can only be used in software projects which have the same license.

http://www.freepascal.org/faq.var#general-license

I don`t modify any fpc\lazarus files.

[TurboRascal]

User links to your framework only, but not directly to FPC/laz components, right?

[Alex Cones]

Did you mean SETUP file of framework?

And I don`t use any components - it`s fully WinAPI dll.

[marcov]

Did you mean SETUP file of framework?

And I don`t use any components - it`s fully WinAPI dll.

One always does, even if only the base FPC rtl (system unit)

[TurboRascal]

Did you mean SETUP file of framework?

No, I meant what I said
Your users would link to your framework... because that's what the framework is for, right? Anyway, since RTL/FCL/LCL are LGPL licensed and you only link to them unmodified, I guess you can use whatever licensing terms you wish (except free/open source ones of course) with your framework...

[Alex Cones]

Did you mean SETUP file of framework?

No, I meant what I said
Your users would link to your framework... because that's what the framework is for, right? Anyway, since RTL/FCL/LCL are LGPL licensed and you only link to them unmodified, I guess you can use whatever licensing terms you wish (except free/open source ones of course) with your framework...

Ok, so, when I can find texts of closed-source licenses? I`m not a lawyer and can`t write it alone.

[JimBeam]

Ok, so, when I can find texts of closed-source licenses? I`m not a lawyer and can`t write it alone.

If you are not a lawyer and won't hire one (I don't blame you
1. I'd start by looking at licenses for programs you have already, e.g. Windows, you might be able to copy them.
2. The exact license (terms/implications) will depend on the jurisdiction of the country you sell the software in, and the jurisdiction of the buyer, so there is no general example.
3. I know that there are some standard contracts published by shareware authors' associations, IT organisations etc. You might want to have a look at those

Maybe somebody has some better ideas?

[Dibo]

Hi,

I have similar problem. There is a lot of "license" topics on this forum so I write here instead of creating new one.

I read this articles:
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/licensing
http://www.freepascal.org/faq.var#general-license

I need to choice license for my free application. I don't want publish source yet (I must clean source first, rewrite comments to english etc.). What I know is when components have LGPL license then I don't have to worry about and can create closed application. But I am using a lot of third party components which some have non LGPL license and now I am confused. This is list of components which I use:

• BGRABitmap - LGPL
• TurboPowerIPro - MPL
• lNet - LGPL ("The modification allows to static/smart - link lNet libraries into binary applications without providing sources")
• DCPcrypt - MIT ("The MIT License states more explicitly the rights given to the end-user, including the right to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell the software")

I am worrying about MPL and MIT license. Can I just use closed Freeware license?

For future: When I decide to publish source of my program, which license should I choice? I want only publish source but don't want allow to modify my source (and redistribute executable compiled with this modified source). At a glance: User can download and compile source only for own use.

Regards.

[Leledumbo]

AFAIK, when you use components from multiple license, you are bound to the tightest one. For example, if you use both LGPL and GPL components, then you have to use GPL. CMIIW

[Dibo]

Hm, it seems that MPL is tightest in my case. But in faq: http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/mpl-faq.html

How 'viral' is the MPL? If I use MPLed code in my proprietary application, will I have to give all the source code away?

 The MPL has a limited amount of 'copyleft' - more copyleft than the BSD family of licenses, which have no copyleft at all, but less than the LGPL or the GPL. It is based around the definition of a 'Modification' in the license [1.9].

 What is a Modification? Any changes to MPLed files, or new files into which MPLed code has been copied, are Modifications and so fall under the MPL. New files containing only your code are not Modifications, and not covered by the MPL.

 Files which fall under the MPL because they are or contain Modifications must be made available as detailed in the license (or elsewhere in this FAQ.) Other files may be kept proprietary.

 One well-known example of this is the Netscape-branded browser. It contains (and Netscape makes source code available for) many files from the Mozilla project, which are under the MPL. But it also contains proprietary code, for example to integrate with the AOL Instant Messenger service.

If I understand correctly: if I did not make any changes in MPL code (TurbopowerIPro) then I can create closed project without publishing source code of my whole application? Even if I do some modifications then I am obliged to publish only modified part? Correct?

P.S. I added information and link to lazarus page on "About" form of my application, but should I list all third party components too?

[Leledumbo]

If I understand correctly: if I did not make any changes in MPL code (TurbopowerIPro) then I can create closed project without publishing source code of my whole application? Even if I do some modifications then I am obliged to publish only modified part? Correct?

According to the definition you post, yes.

I added information and link to lazarus page on "About" form of my application, but should I list all third party components too?

Look in the components documentation or units, some authors ask this. Lazarus itself actually doesn't ask for it, but it would be a good thing to help spreading Object Pascal.