License question lazarus / 8-Other ---------------------------------------------------------------------- typo · 2012-06-13 16:01 Is it possible that a program be a shareware at the same time that I distribute the code for the Lazarus community? Thanks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BigChimp · 2012-06-13 16:13 Typo, Trying to guess what you mean based on such a brief description is a bit hard..., so some questions to help clear up what you mean. What do you mean by shareware? Sotfware that you have to pay for? Are you distributing only your own code? Could you tell us a bit more of what you want to do? (Edit: now I'm not so sure about the FPC compiler code etc... you'd have to look up the licenses...) If you use e.g. FPC code or the LCL, IIRC, it's LGPL licensed with an extra exception that allows use in commerical programs without having to disclose the source code. The Lazarus IDE however, is GPL licensed: if you include (parts of) that in your program, the GPL applies to the whole program and you are obliged to provide the source to it. However, you can still ask money for the binary application if you want to. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- typo · 2012-06-13 16:30 I am forwarding the question indeed. Let's wait for the intervention of the interested party. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- circular · 2012-06-13 19:12 That was my question. Well I would like to distribute a Rubik's cube game as a shareware, which means that people can use it but are asked to pay for it in some way. As I would be the main programmer, it sounds logical that I get some remuneration. But at the same time, I woud like the source code to be available, for learning purposes and some code could be used in other projects. Of course the Donate principle seems more obvious, but nobody donates, so I would like to define another contract with users. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BigChimp · 2012-06-13 19:36 I understand. You could license the game source code under modified LGPL just like the LCL. This will allow you to ask money for the binary. You would however have to distribute the source code to anybody who gets the binary (or put it up on a website etc where anybody with a binary can get it) too... so that would not stop somebody else from compiling the program and giving it away/selling it etc. Perhaps a better license for your code would be something like BSD or MIT [1] which allows you to do whatever you want - no obligation to provide the source code if you sell/give away/distribute a binary. As far as I understand, the modified LGPL LCL code will happily work with that. I'm fairly sure about that, but some confirmation on that would be nice. This leaves you free to distribute the source code however/whenever you want. Once you distribute the source code, especially for use by other programmers, it's hard to restrict use... and perhaps you shouldn't. A Rubik game would be interesting for many more people than just programmers, depending on how easy/attractive it becomes, so a lot of people might be interested in the binary who haven't even seen a line of code in their lives One other thing you might need to take care of though is potential infringement of existing rights (of e.g. the guys that make those Rubik's cubes). What rights? I suspect patents won't apply because it's not business methods etc. Copyright? As far as I understand you can have copyright only on a written/annotated piece of work, which could also be a drawing of the cube etc. Trademark? Rubik might be a trademark which a company has deposited... I'm a bit hazy on what happens with that. Can't think of anything else right now. Not being a lawyer, and having forgotten a lot of this stuff (this is all off the top of my head): you might want to dig a bit further and/or wait for others to chip in. [1] Source, Insert General, MIT notice in recent Lazarus releases ---------------------------------------------------------------------- circular · 2012-06-14 08:02 Thanks BigChimp. Maybe I could make two different programs. One LGPL, that would be like the existing one, which contains the Rubik's cube engine, and that can be used just like a standard Rubik's cube, but not designed for gaming, and another program, under copyright, which would be a real game, with levels, etc. that would use what is in the first program. You're right about the Rubik brand name. Maybe I could call my program something like VirtualCube (this name is already used, so another one). Or ask Rubik company about the name. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BigChimp · 2012-06-14 08:07 Good idea.