How to suppress the fpc boilerplate version and copyright?

[discretegames]

Every time I run fpc I see this boilerplate text with the version and copyright:

Code: [Select]

Free Pascal Compiler version 3.2.2 [2021/05/15] for i386
Copyright (c) 1993-2021 by Florian Klaempfl and others
Is there any to hide or suppress it? The verbose option -v0 does not do it.

This normally wouldn't be an issue but I'm chaining fpc compile and run commands and capturing the stdout, so I need to suppress anything except for the stdout of the actual program.

[MarkMLl]

I would suggest that suppressing the author's copyright message is uncivil, and contravenes the spirit if not the letter of just about every non-PD license in existence.

I'd suggest that a useful compromise would be to accept the fact that the compiler emits those messages, but to discard them using grep in your pipeline.

MarkMLl

[skalogryz]

Every time I run fpc I see this boilerplate text with the version and copyright:
Is there any to hide or suppress it? The verbose option -v0 does not do it.

Code: Pascal  [Select][+][-]

1. fpc -l-

-l - prints the logo (copyright mark)
-l- - hides the logo

@MarkMLl please don't use "Report to moderator" if a post doesn't have any explicit violations of the internet norms.

[discretegames]

Thanks skalogryz! That works excellently. I knew there'd be an option for it.

[MarkMLl]

@MarkMLl please don't use "Report to moderator" if a post doesn't have any explicit violations of the internet norms.

Noted, but I asked for an opinion in case nobody else had spotted this taking into account timezone disparities etc.

MarkMLl

[skalogryz]

Noted, but I asked for an opinion in case nobody else had spotted this taking into account timezone disparities etc.

You need to use "Request Immediate Community Attention" link in this case xD

IMHO: the nature of the forum suggests non-immediate answers. It's ok for a question to stay un answered or without opinions for a 72 hours.

[Martin_fr]

IMHO, if you are unsure a question raises legal concerns, or may lead towards answers that may do so, then it is fine to "report to mods".
Sure there will be the false positive now and then. But heck, that's life.

I don't think this question falls into the category. So therefore it is a false positive.

Just my tuppence worth.

[skalogryz]

just to clarify from the legal prespective.

GNU GPL doesn't apply to the complier's output, that means removing any produced text is ok

One could provide their own version of FPC with the copyright mark replaced. It would still satisfy GNU GPL as long as the changes are highlighted and the original licenses are present. It could/might be unethical, but still legal.

Do you think it is legal/ethical that only Florian's name is on the copyright? FPC itself is a product of many other people as well.

[Tomas Hajny]

I would suggest that suppressing the author's copyright message is uncivil, and contravenes the spirit if not the letter of just about every non-PD license in existence.

I'd suggest that a useful compromise would be to accept the fact that the compiler emits those messages, but to discard them using grep in your pipeline.

MarkMLl

Thanks for your concern with regard to FPC authors.

First, it isn't clear from the original post whether the suppression is meant during processing directly issued by the original poster, or by somebody else (like a customer, etc.). However, even if it is the latter, there are other ways to give the appropriate credits (like proper documentation, etc.), i.e. suppression of the copyright message is not necessarily a problem. Second, FPC license provides specific information on what is allowed and/or required; always displaying the copyright on every run of FPC is not required there.

[MarkMLl]

First, it isn't clear from the original post whether the suppression is meant during processing directly issued by the original poster, or by somebody else (like a customer, etc.). However, even if it is the latter, there are other ways to give the appropriate credits (like proper documentation, etc.), i.e. suppression of the copyright message is not necessarily a problem.

Hence my suggestion of excluding it using grep etc., where at the very least the fact that somebody was specifically dropping messages would be visible to anybody who had the relevant script file (and OP's mention of stdout suggested he was aware of such things).

Second, FPC license provides specific information on what is allowed and/or required; always displaying the copyright on every run of FPC is not required there.

I think the bottom line is that since the compiler has supplied a way of suppressing the messages the developers aren't too unhappy about it being done.

Finally, I'd like to apologise to OP: I wasn't trying to "blow the whistle" or anything like that, but I wanted to make sure that the filtering suggestion I'd made didn't rub anybody up the wrong way.

MarkMLl

p.s. I can't see a "Request Immediate Community Attention" link, and once a message drops off the "Recent" pane it's likely to be overlooked by many.

[PascalDragon]

Second, FPC license provides specific information on what is allowed and/or required; always displaying the copyright on every run of FPC is not required there.

I think the bottom line is that since the compiler has supplied a way of suppressing the messages the developers aren't too unhappy about it being done.

In addition to that the default option of the compiler itself is not to show the logo output. It's simply enabled by default in the provided fpc.cfg.