License question..._(re)

Fri, 6 Jun 1997 03:21:46 +0200 (MET DST)

According to Orlando Llanes:
> 
> Thanks for the help with the port statements! I figure that $define'ing
> them will save time because of no stack operations (right? :}).

Right.  (Except the `volatile' problem Juki pointed out, GPC should
do all this automatically with `-O3', but until that day, you can
work around using the (*$define foo(bar) ... *) kludge.)

> I was looking at the FAQ again, 
> and saw the license, I can see that GPC can be as
> big as GCC, but the problem I have is that what I want with it conflicts
> with it's license, I want to develop computer games commercial/shareware.

This does not conflict with the license at all.  Myself am planning to
make a living with programs I will write with GNU Pascal.  (At the moment,
I still write most of them with Borland Pascal, but I already sold one
written with GPC ... :)

> I will be writing my own Game Libraries, and am willing to make them free
> under GNU to develop commercially or for education.

Be welcome to do that!  :)  I suggest to put it under the LGPL, not the 
ordinary GPL, because then it's easier to use it with programs you don't
want to release the source.

 * It is NOT required that you publish the source of your programs when 
   using an LGPLed library; when using a GPLed library, this IS required
   unless stated otherwise explicitly in its license.

 * When using an LGPLed library, you must ensure that the client can modify
   (e.g. upgrade) the library, and your program will work with the new
   version.  The easiest way to achieve this is to link it dynamically.

 * When using a GPLed library, you still have the possibility to write a
   free (GPLed) program which cooperates with your own program.  Then you
   can sell both.  (It's OKAY to charge a fee - as much as you wish and
   your clients are willing to pay - for the free program, but the clients
   must be allowed to redistribute the free program.)

(While I was first shocked by the thought that I would have to release
the source of some of my programs, I meanwhile think that the idea is not
that bad:  It makes it easier to fix bugs when the client has the source!)

> But what puts me in the
> spot is that the license in a way says I can't develop comemrcially?
> Are there exceptions or exclusions?

The definitions of "commercial" and "free" software don't exclude each
other.  You are welcome to distribute free software, e.g. GNU Pascal
itself, for a fee.  There are companies like Cygnus Solutions making
a living this way.

For details about "selling free software", see

    http://www.gnu.ai.mit.edu/philosophy/selling.html

mirrored in Germany as

    http://agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de/~gnu/philosophy/selling.html

but - once again - it is NO PROBLEM to use GNU Pascal for writing non-free
software.  I only recommend to read the licenses of all libraries you are
using carefully - including the GNU Pascal run-time library.  (... which
you should do anyway, regardless which compiler and libraries you are going 
to use.)

Greetings,

    Peter

 Dipl.-Phys. Peter Gerwinski, Essen, Germany, free physicist and programmer
peter.gerwinski@uni-essen.de - http://home.pages.de/~peter.gerwinski/ [970201]
 maintainer GNU Pascal [970510] - http://home.pages.de/~gnu-pascal/ [970125]

Peter Gerwinski (peter@agnes.dida.physik.uni-essen.de)