Lazarus in 'Linux' magazine

[HappyLarry]

There is a 4 page article on Lazarus in the current edition of Linux magazine.
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Resources/Current-Issue

[felipemdc]

I moved it to Team announcements because it looks cool enough.

[IndianaJones]

I have been following Linux-Magazine for a long time, great magazine for Linux users and administrators. Anyway great news for the Lazarus.

[JuhaManninen]

What does the article say?
Maybe I should buy a copy of the magazine after a long time.

Juha

[IndianaJones]

I received the magazine and read the article. It generally talks about a preview and gives the idea about how easily create an application and move to another platform with one way click ahead.
So good for the FPC and Lazarus community.

Happy Solstice.   

[Brian_ch]

Hi,

I buy the Brazilian Linux magazine issue 86 from January and in the article "Uma mão para o Pascal" in frame 1 it says:

"...Antes de usar o componente em um aplicativo comercial, é uma boa ideia conferir a licença, que está embarcada no código fonte para o componente. O Lazarus em si, não é licenciado sob GPL."

(Before using the component in a commercial application, is a good idea to check the license, that is embedded in the source code of the component, Lazarus itself is not license under the GPL)

And this is wrong according to the FAQ in :
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_Faq#Can_I_make_commercial_applications_with_Lazarus_.3F

Here is the article :
http://lnm.com.br/article/uma_maeo_para_o_pascal

I will send a email to the magazine too, to inform they about this.

[Martin_fr]

(Before using the component in a commercial application, is a good idea to check the license, that is embedded in the source code of the component, Lazarus itself is not license under the GPL)

And this is wrong according to the FAQ in :
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_Faq#Can_I_make_commercial_applications_with_Lazarus_.3F

Have you read the next entry in the FAQ?
"Why are some components restricted from usage in commercial application ? "

- The   LCL   is LGPL (with a special added permission)
so the LCL can be used for writing commercial app

An app with a form, Tbutton, TEdit is all LCL

- The IDE is GPL
So you can not compile a copy of Lazarus and sell the IDE

- SynEdit is MPL (or GPL - choice given to user)
That is because it existed before Lazarus, and we need to stick with that
So SynEdit can not be used in commercial apps or closed source (or whatever MPL / GPL say)

there are more none LCL components.
For those you must check the license

[Brian_ch]

Yes, the first part of the phrase is correct, but I think they said that the IDE is not under the GPL, is that part of the text that I think it's wrong.

Do you understand portuguese? I think it would be good that another portuguese speaker read this to see if I misunderstood or if It's actually wrong.

[circular]

I guess you are right Brian_ch. And Martin_fr is right too. In fact, the correct phrase would rather be something like "the Lazarus environnement is GPL, nevertheless you can freely create programs with it. Many components are LGPL but you must be aware that some are not"

[Zoran]

So SynEdit can not be used in commercial apps or closed source (or whatever MPL / GPL say)

If I'm not misstaken, MPL allows using in closed source and commercial applications.

[brunof]

I read this article too.
Now im very happy to start again coding in Obj pascal with Lazarus.

[mica]

- The IDE is GPL
So you can not compile a copy of Lazarus and sell the IDE

Sure you can.GPL is all about the source.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

[Martin_fr]

- The IDE is GPL
So you can not compile a copy of Lazarus and sell the IDE

Sure you can.GPL is all about the source.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Should have signed my statement with "I am not a lawyer" ...

Anyway you are correct, I did not write what I wanted to write. So 2 points to follow (both my understanding, if your lawyer says otherwise, believe him)

1) In many countries selling requires ownership or permission by owner or similar.
The page you link talks about "a charge" for "redistribution" AKA "fee". That fee may indeed not be limited. But that does not make it "selling"

For that whole conflict, most big software companies do not sell you a copy of their product, but only a license to use it.
Of course with the GPL, everyone gets the license itself for free.

Also, even so the GPL itself does allow a fee of any amount you like, in most countries you will have to tell people what they pay for. So even if permitted it will be hard to find people who pay, unless you deceive them to believe, that there was no cheaper/free way. Such deception of course may be seen as fraud....

2) What I meant to say:

If you modify the IDE (using the IDE code itself), or write any code that uses the IDE code:
The GPL enforces, that this final product is GPL too. So you will have to make the source available and do all  else the GPL requires.

(So in this case, I guess you have an ownership to the modifications, even if you are forced to put them under gpl.)

---
On the other hand the LCL is LGPL (with additional permission of static linking): So if you write an app that contains LCL code (TForm, TButton, ...) you are entirely free how you wish to license