Re: Licensing software created with Gambas

[Gianluigi <gradobag@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Il 25/07/24 15:03, Stéphane Aulery ha scritto:
> Le 25/07/2024 à 14:59, Gianluigi a écrit :
> > Il 25/07/24 14:45, Stéphane Aulery ha scritto:
> > > Le 25/07/2024 à 14:24, Gianluigi a écrit :
> > > > Il 25/07/24 12:55, Stéphane Aulery ha scritto:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > On the Gambas website and in its code repository I only find
> > > > > references
> > > > > to the GPL 2.0+ license for Gambas source code and CC-BY-SA 3.0 for
> > > > > wiki
> > > > > pages.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it possible to write non-GPL software with Gambas such as ISC,
> > > > > CeCILL-B?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the question arises for component code and other code
> > > > > implicitly
> > > > > included in a Gambas project.
> > > >
> > > > if you read here (*), you see all the GPL compatible licenses.
> > > > I'm not a lawyer, but I don't understand why you want to use a license
> > > > that guarantees you less than the one used by Gambas.
> > >
> > > GPL is contaminating. I prefer to write my software without trying to
> > > control what its users will do with it. For this, the libraries with
> > > which the final software code is linked must be in LGPL, and not GPL.
> > >
> > > I am not asking that Gambas or its IDE be licensed under LGPL.
> > >
> > > I'm asking if the library/component license is GPL and if that's
> > > deliberate. A clarification at least.
> >
> > As far as I know GPL is for projects and LGPL is for libraries
>
> In summary yes, and Gambas does not show this distinction in the
> licensing information. Hence my question. Is this intentional or
> accidental?

But Gambas is a project, not a library :-\

Regards
Gianluigi