Simple FPC/Lazarus SVN downloader WIP - suggestions?

[BigChimp]

Hi all,

I'm writing a (hopefully) simple tool that downloads FPC/Lazarus from SVN and installs it, separate from existing installs (snapshots, release builds, other SVNs).
It's still work in progress, but it succesfully updats my FPC/Lazarus install right now. I'd like your opinions, please.
(Previously I tried updating the LazUpdater project, but it was too chaotic to my tastes. Also, I'm getting really tired of writing/updating batch files - that aren't cross-platform to boot.)

Edit: moved features/todo to 3rd party announcement
http://lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,15919.msg85962.html#msg85962
Any suggestions, hints, bug reports etc are welcome.

Thanks.

BitBucket repository and download: https://bitbucket.org/reiniero/fpcup

[BigChimp]

I noticed I had added a Synapse unit (which has a BSD license) to the main program (LGPL with linking exception)... is that actually allowed?

Otherwise I'll probably relicense the stuff as BSD and keep the SVNClient part modified LGPL, which seems possible...

[ludob]

I noticed I had added a Synapse unit (which has a BSD license) to the main program (LGPL with linking exception)... is that actually allowed?

I'm not an expert but:
- your not distributing the synapse unit
- you publish no binary, it's source only
So both LGPL and BSD should be happy.

[BigChimp]

Hmmm, I'm not distributing the synapse unit YET - because I forgot
Second point well taken, but would like to distribute binary anyway later.

In this case, I think normal GPL (L part seems less relevant as they're unit files not separate libraries that can be linked into main code separately) would prohibit this.

However, I might be saved by the exception:

  As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you
  permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an
  executable, regardless... [blah]

However, it does say library, not something like module or source code or program....

Any thoughts?

[BigChimp]

Ok, updated zip in first post with synapse source as well..

[ludob]

Any thoughts?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility, recent BSD versions are GPL compatible. Unfortunately Synapse uses the old, incompatible version

Is the BSD license too liberal for your code?

[BigChimp]

Ludo, thanks for looking into this.

No, love the BSD license It's just that:

• I adapted the svncommand unit from FPC so that license should remain
• I was thinking about getting the finished product into FPC or Lazarus as a demo/useful tool if it works well. Having the same license as the rest would simplify things.

I could relicense everything except the svncommand unit to BSD/MIT....

Looking at the files I'm using I do see the new (3 clause) BSD license...
httpsend.pas: 3
blcksock.pas: 3
ssfpc.inc
sswin32.inc
sslinux.inc
synacode.pas
synafpc.pas
synaip.pas
synautil.pas
synsock.pas
e.g. this part:

| Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this  |
| list of conditions and the following disclaimer.                             |
|                                                                              |
| Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,    |
| this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation    |
| and/or other materials provided with the distribution.                       |
|                                                                              |
| Neither the name of Lukas Gebauer nor the names of its contributors may      |
| be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without    |
| specific prior written permission.

According to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses it is GPL compatible?!?

So if I am correct I can also leave it as is...

Anyway, on with Linux testing & tweaking... and any hints why Windows x64 cross compiling fails would be very welcome!

[ludob]

You are right, it is the 3 clause version. No problem then.

[BigChimp]

Thanks. Updated the zip (some more fixes for running on Linux)

[marcov]

Adding (modified) BSD code to LGPL (even without exception) doesn't really require special handling.

It is no different from adding LGPL to LGPL code. 

Moreover, the linking exception defangs most of those problems.

[BigChimp]

Thanks Marco, that soothes my paranoid tendencies 

[TurboRascal]

Also, if you own the (L)GPL-ed code, you may add any exceptions you wish of this kind to the license... RMS actually said it's even preferable to use full GPL with exceptions when needed.

[BigChimp]

Thanks, yes, Arny, but I shamelessly used existing FPC SVN code 

(If I had released it as a new project, I would probably have given it a BSD or MIT license - or even dual licensed: BSD+GPL)

Updated the project to also do a make bigide so your Lazarus install should have all the packages that you had added before.

Feedback on how the program works is still welcome - i.e. I seem to get errors when doing a bare metal install (on Windows) with the binutils that I download. Am I downloading the right ones?
But it does work nicely to keep my SVN version of FPC 2.6 and Lazarus up to date on Windows.

Questions...

[TurboRascal]

Thanks, yes, Arny, but I shamelessly used existing FPC SVN code 

Well, I just wanted to point out, if RMS says it can be done with GPL, then you have even less to worry with LGPL

[lainz]

You can do something to download and install lazarus packages?