License for FBGFX?

[zerospeed]

my problem with the LGPL license is that it is ambiguous in it's terms, you almost need a degree in law to make sure you understand it

That's the idea, that you need lawyers :-)

but it's the general consensus that linking in a static LGPL lib makes your app a derivative work, whereas it's OK to use the shared library.

Anyway, authors of libraries could add their own "exceptions" to the general licenses, like rtlib which is LGPL and allow direct linking as static object.

And I repeat, the "derivative-work" stated in LGPL, even Richard Stallman interpret it differently.

So please: the author of FBGFX add the exception to the library and we all enjoy using FreeBASIC?

I guess the only problems with linking GFX lib will be another libraries that expose some "API" and use FBGFX as backend.

[cha0s]

It will be added to the gfxlib according to lillo.

I just want to say that my interpretation of the wording seems to be that if my final executable links in actual library code, then I have created a derivative work. If I make a library using the original library, with declarations pointing to the other library, but not actually linked (until an executable is created using my lib which uses the other lib), then it is NOT a derivative work. At least that's how it seems.

[Sisophon2001]

It will be added to the gfxlib according to lillo.

I just want to say that my interpretation of the wording seems to be that if my final executable links in actual library code, then I have created a derivative work. If I make a library using the original library, with declarations pointing to the other library, but not actually linked (until an executable is created using my lib which uses the other lib), then it is NOT a derivative work. At least that's how it seems.

cha0s, you are talking in circles and giving me a headache. Or making it worse - I had a bad day.

Garvan

[cha0s]

I'm not from around here...

[angros47]

It will be added to the gfxlib according to lillo.

Now that years have passed, has it been added? The wiki still reports the old license

[angros47]

I ask because there are people who are held back by that:

https://www.syntaxbomb.com/tutorials/on ... icseen#new

[Imortis]

https://github.com/freebasic/fbc/blob/m ... icense.txt
Looks like it has been changed. That is the same license file that is in the rtlib.

[angros47]

Thank you!

I would suggest to update the wiki page, then: https://www.freebasic.net/wiki/GnuLicenses, since it still states that the license is only the LGPL

[fxm]

Done:
GnuLicenses → fxm [Updated FBGFX license on wiki page]