lillo has communicated that he intends the gfxlib to be under the same license as the compiler and rtlib
IIRC, compiler is pure GPL, while RTLIB is LGPL+yyy by now ??
So what will the universal license be ?
GPL ? -> No commercial development nor closed source freeware then
LGPL+yyy ? -> :-)
Even better than LGPL+yyy would be GPL+zzz (exception allowing to use
unmodified library in closed source products without releasing any source or objects), IMHO ...
So what licensing model do the devels prefer ? (sorted from best to worst by my opinion)
1. Compiler GPL, libraries BSD : allows non-GPL development, clean & simple, no further license discussions and low risk of piracy, OTOH less protection of libraries
2. Compiler GPL, libraries GPL+zzz : allows non-GPL development, almost clean & simple, good protection of libraries
3. Compiler GPL, libraries LGPL+yyy : allows non-GPL development, less clean & simple, good protection of libraries, confusing LGPL kept
4. All GPL : very clean solution, but no non-GPL development, a bit "too late" to change the license to a more restrictive one, differs from most other GPL compilers, would promote usage of old FB versions (without gfxlib), and devels would have to make very clear that "FB is intended for GPL development only" and prosecute the pirates ...
5. Keep as is : the absolutely worst choice, convenience has a secret effect of invoking LGPL, what to do with intentional/unintentional "pirates" ? Prosecute or silently tolerate ?