Recent

Author Topic: CT slope  (Read 21070 times)

sam707

  • Guest
CT slope
« on: August 19, 2017, 07:20:43 pm »
Hello friends, ennemies, shrimps, bicycles and etcetera. I decided today to remove the big bad lazarus "fork" known as codetyphon from my computers. I changed my profile signature (see at bottom) which included so far the ct version i used. Actually I'm on hollidays, so only 2 computers are concerned. When back home, many more!

reasons?

- since version 1.8, Lazarus surprises me in a cool way, with its online package manager. I installed ct fork, also because it had numerous -'also forked'- libraries delivered

- I am a big bad old wolf BUT I DO respect the original author's sweat (even if some are my 'ennemies' on forums! and I always put their names in about boxes (never remove their owned comments from their sources), instead of hidding them bad as the ct fork does (see articles pointed here https://jonlennartaasenden.wordpress.com/tag/codetyphon/)

- with the cool fpcupdeluxe tool I can work with the very very latest versions of laz+fpc (often dayly buits on fixes branch) and even manage cross-compiling in a cool way

- I'm upset against ct fork's disrespect of the authors who they copy (legal or not there is a so called moral comportment that the fork pee on, with no reason

- I do not want to write and publish some of my works if the underlying 3rd party licenses are in an opaque fog that could bring me troubles in laws (ct orca is firemonkey base or something, and if Delphi decides to shoot one day, I bet all guys using orca are going to loose their shirts, just an example among others)

SO I'm BACK to Lazarus and Lazarus ONLY it is now enough mature and clean for my purpose... and fully compliant with my licensing Respect!

My Moral says "it's not because it's free that you've the right to appropriate, forkers!" even more, "as it"s free, IT DESERVES Respect, and mentioning of the original authors is the minimal thing you MUST do"

Regards!

Finally, I invite the ct fork's users to try fpcupdeluxe and online packages manager, I think they'll get almost the same experience, but with no dangerous blurred licensing fog

Big bad old Sam707.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2017, 07:40:17 pm by sam707 »

Thaddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14157
  • Probably until I exterminate Putin.
Re: CT slope
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2017, 08:27:41 pm »
Although I still distrust CT, I have accepted Juha's explanation that the authors of CT contribute back to FPC.
I still don't use it anymore because;
1: I can build (cross-) compilers from source myself. That's not rocket science.
2: incompatibilities were introduced. That is a REAL problem.
The 3th one: the license compliance I consider no longer an issue at the moment.

But I still not use it (although I try from time to time). Same reason goes for NewPascal, btw, but I am testing that as far as it is possible w/o an accessible trunk. FWIW NewPascal tries to give everything back, but the developers of Newpascal have no patience nor a clue about how to maintain a language properly over time(well, a bit... O:-)  That includes they also can't document. At Al: if you fork, fork the documentation and keep it up to date.l)
« Last Edit: August 19, 2017, 08:35:16 pm by Thaddy »
Specialize a type, not a var.

RAW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
Re: CT slope
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2017, 09:00:50 pm »
For someone outside the "CIRCLE" it's hard to understand what exactly the difference is between LAZARUS and NEWPASCAL.

Quote
NewPascal offers a ready-to-be-used and up-to-date FPC and Lazarus environment.
That's exactly what LAZARUS offers too.... I guess...  :D

Quote
..but with latest features on main Linux/Windows targets.
Hmmm, yeah... sounds very nice, but what exactly is the difference compared to LAZARUS...  maybe some examples are a good idea to let ordinary people understand what's going on...  :)
Windows 7 Pro (x64 Sp1) & Windows XP Pro (x86 Sp3).

sam707

  • Guest
Re: CT slope
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2017, 09:04:41 pm »
I agree with both @Thaddy and @Raw

plus the fact that newpascal supports less platfarms than fpc... I don't have a clue why, so forget about me looking at its 'restrictive' updates

Prefer talk directly to god than one of his saints!

Bye bye forkland
« Last Edit: August 19, 2017, 09:21:55 pm by sam707 »

JuhaManninen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4458
  • I like bugs.
Re: CT slope
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2017, 09:40:19 pm »
For someone outside the "CIRCLE" it's hard to understand what exactly the difference is between LAZARUS and NEWPASCAL.
Why don't you look yourself? There is a web page:
  http://newpascal.org/
It is about providing binaries for Maciej's latest compiler features + mORMot.
Mostly Lazarus trunk and FPC 3.2 on Manjaro Linux 64-bit.

RAW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
Re: CT slope
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2017, 09:51:07 pm »
Quote
Why don't you look yourself? There is a web page:...
I just downloaded the windows pack and maybe tomorrow I have some time to see what's this all about...
Maybe I can figure out what are the differences. If that would be my webpage (especially the front page...), I would offer a lot more details...  :)
Windows 7 Pro (x64 Sp1) & Windows XP Pro (x86 Sp3).

DonAlfredo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
Re: CT slope
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2017, 10:18:00 pm »
Maciej can give you the whole answer, but in short.

(Few year ago).
Some FPC users wanted to use the mORMot database framework to its full extent.
This full extent could only be offered by FPC trunk + some RTTI changes.

Building FPC trunk + patching it can be hard.
So, it was decided to present a ready made FPC trunk with the necessary changes.
Including the mORMot with some necessary changes to work with FPC.
Result: NewPascal.

To be able to install NewPascal (in an easy way) on many systems, fpcupdeluxe was created (an extension of fpcup by BigChimp RIP).
Features were added into fpcupdeluxe.

In the meantime (currently):
mORMot has been made fully FPC compatible.
FPC trunk includes many changes from NewPascal.
The mORMot can run from standard FPC trunk to its full extent.
Fpcupdeluxe does (much) more than just installing NewPascal.

RAW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 868
Re: CT slope
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2017, 10:42:57 pm »
Quote
...Result: NewPascal.
Thanks for the info... nice to know...

Quote
Fpcupdeluxe does (much) more than just installing NewPascal.
That's interesting too...
Windows 7 Pro (x64 Sp1) & Windows XP Pro (x86 Sp3).

JuhaManninen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4458
  • I like bugs.
Re: CT slope
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2017, 10:58:07 pm »
Although I still distrust CT, I have accepted Juha's explanation that the authors of CT contribute back to FPC.
I haven't heard of them contributing back to FPC, but it is perfectly OK because the license does not require it.
Actually they do not fork FPC. (IIRC?)  They do fork Lazarus + many libraries. They publish their modified sources as the license requires.

@sam707, you should not write what you did. You try to start yet another flame war against CT and, surprise, again led by the Jon Lennart person.
I honestly don't remember if you participated in the earlier flame wars. Maybe you don't know them, but your arguments are the same.
CT follows the license but they are immoral anyway.... OMG!
The blogs you read mix facts, opinions and pure lies in an agressive and tempting way. It is very effective as we can see!

The only issue with some substance is the Orca+VgScene+Firemonkey case. Of course he makes a big fuss about it and then mixes in "alternative facts".
Anyway, Embarcadero should be the only party interested in Orca license. They are not because VgScene's license was a mess and they also may violate it. No big deal...
So why does Mr. Jon Lennart worry about it so much?

Back then he managed to kill FreeSparta and was determined to kill CT. His hate-blog listed reasons like "Open source means no business" which is the very opposite what the license authors say, and "There is an international law for revision control server". Hmmm ... There is no such law! Lies lies lies ...
He claimed CT removed author info from some packages. It actually turned out to be true for some 4 or 5 packages. Anyway he refused to give more info and said it is CT's responsibility to know it. Hmmm ... interesting ...
He claimed his own source was stolen but refused to give more info.
I consider it possible that he decides to attack Lazarus project the same way at some point.

@sam707, you wrote about lack of respect from CT's side. No, forking itself is a sign of respect! At least I am honored.
There are many pathetic FOSS projects that nobody is interested in. CT proves that Lazarus is not one of them.  :)
Forking is a freedom provided by our idealistic (L)GPL, and freedom is good!

When the license issues came up again last time, I studied both CT and the license itself for 2 days. I found 2 small violations by CT against Lazarus code. You can find the related post in forum history.
1. Some new files missed a license header.
2. They had not listed their modifications in file's header comments. This is a license requirement for some reason.
Lazarus project is guilty for the nro. 2 violation against SynEdit. Why is Lazarus not attacked the same way CT is?
« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 12:03:57 pm by JuhaManninen »
Mostly Lazarus trunk and FPC 3.2 on Manjaro Linux 64-bit.

sam707

  • Guest
Re: CT slope
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2017, 12:01:42 am »
@juha I do not attempt to kill a project or another. I'm just aware of what happened with Jon lenart.

You are right @Juha, I did not participate to the Jon affair... and I won't participate to such affairs, as long as free material from me isn't ressell

I do not care about people breaching licenses or redistributing copied material (i was already born, and young adult, while a certain B. Gates became the most rich bizman that way... see my cp/m knowledge at my signature)

I just wrote this post, @Juha, to show how moral comportments should be, and how I DO practise them myself in the opensource world. I do not force anyone to be moral, I 'invite'

I do NOT attempt to be a moralist toward others, I put my trust in the Wheel of Time.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2017, 12:06:58 am by sam707 »

JuhaManninen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4458
  • I like bugs.
Re: CT slope
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2017, 11:55:08 am »
You are right @Juha, I did not participate to the Jon affair... and I won't participate to such affairs, as long as free material from me isn't ressell
Then you must choose your license carefully!
(L)GPL not only allows selling the code but its authors encourage to do so.
  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
The "Free" in "Free Software" does not mean "gratis" as explained by RMS in many occasions.

The GNU link about selling is clearly old, I guess from 1990's. It says:
Quote
With free software, users don't have to pay the distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who has network access. Or several users can join together, split the price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software. A high CD-ROM price is not a major obstacle when the software is free.
Now CD-ROMs are almost history and everybody has network access.

The idea explained in the page is still valid. Many companies, including Google, have proved that business with FOSS can be profitable.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2017, 04:13:36 pm by JuhaManninen »
Mostly Lazarus trunk and FPC 3.2 on Manjaro Linux 64-bit.

sam707

  • Guest
Re: CT slope
« Reply #11 on: August 21, 2017, 02:02:42 am »
dear @Juha, some of my old soft were never be 'cracked'. "You do not need license(s) were common sense is King" is a good saying, I guess

I am actually trying to make a soft that I will give to the lazarus with no restriction (that is my choice for it), BUT, when I work on commercial products (in cases) I do not want to be copied I think I have some 'weapons' under the bones of my skull (encryption, serial codes, machine BIOS (graphcard or mboard) serials pick, etc etc etc)

That's why, to me, the Jon affair was of no interest = when you want to protect your ass, you always can! now if you give something, dont blame idiots putting their crapy names and appropriate.. it's just not fair, and I wanted to tell that I don't do that! That's not 'moral' to my own common sense
« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 02:07:40 am by sam707 »

Akira1364

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 561
Re: CT slope
« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2017, 03:11:41 am »
Just to clarify, isn't Jon Lennart the guy who wrote/maintains/sells Smart Mobile Studio? I have no particular personal positive or negative feelings towards him as I'm not really specifically familiar with the whole controversy that surrounded him a while ago, but I will say that SMS is a great piece of software that was clearly written by someone who knows what they're doing.

As far as CodeTyphon... as I've said in the past, yes, it's definitely true that they've done some vaguely shady things such as the removal of license headers from source files before. However, it's also true that the vast majority of the components they bundle with the CodeTyphon IDE are objectively better in at least one way than their original versions. The rest are at least the same as the originals. None are worse. Sometimes their bugfixes even extend as far as making components/packages that were originally completely broken on Lazarus work fine in CT!

For example, the ASIO-VST components/GUI controls package they bundle started as a Delphi package that the original author haphazardly attempted to port to Lazarus later on in its life. They didn't do an especially good job, and the original Lazarus port never worked at all. The CT guys took that codebase, cleaned it up, fixed the bugs, and have since been able to distribute a version that works perfectly. What I'm getting at is, the people who say that "CodeTyphon is just Lazarus with a bunch of components pre-installed" are simply incorrect. You cannot get the versions of the components they distribute anywhere else.

Regarding whether they actually fork FPC itself, as far as I can tell they do. I have definitely noticed various changes to the FPC sources in the past that were clearly unique additions by the CT programmers. (Just search for "ct9999" if you want to find these anywhere, as it seems to be some kind of little flag they put in a comment after any piece of code they add to or modify.)

Finally, I invite the ct fork's users to try fpcupdeluxe and online packages manager, I think they'll get almost the same experience

Sorry, but no, they really won't. Not yet, at least...

Although Lazarus has recently come a long way as far as automated installations with things like FPCUpDeluxe and the awesome Online Package Manager, those programs still don't come close to providing the overall "absolutely everything is all in the same place, in the same application, and just works right away 100% of the time" experience that the CodeTyphon Center application does. Their whole cross-platform build infrastructure is remarkably complex (lots of OS and Platform specific scripts, e.t.c) and is something I would suggest would be worth examining both by the Lazarus IDE team and the maintainers of applications like FPCUpDeluxe/OPM/e.t.c....

Lastly, I should note that I'm pretty sure a large part of the CT teams overall consistency regarding making things "just work all the time" stems from the fact that they seem to approach absolutely everything from a wholly unbiased standpoint of "this code must work on all supported platforms, or we're not releasing it." Whereas from what I've observed around here there are many users who seem to have very overt "preferences" for a specific OS, sometimes even believing that their choice of that OS gives them some kind of moral high ground over people who use everything else (which is utterly childish, of course), and as such have no real concern for whether or not their code works on any platform that isn't the one they use.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 08:01:10 am by Akira1364 »

DonAlfredo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
Re: CT slope
« Reply #13 on: August 21, 2017, 08:50:32 am »
Quote
Although Lazarus has recently come a long way as far as automated installations with things like FPCUpDeluxe and the awesome Online Package Manager, those programs still don't come close to providing the overall "absolutely everything is all in the same place, in the same application, and just works right away 100% of the time" experience that the CodeTyphon Center application does. Their whole cross-platform build infrastructure is remarkably complex (lots of OS and Platform specific scripts, e.t.c) and is something I would suggest would be worth examining both by the Lazarus IDE team and the maintainers of applications like FPCUpDeluxe/OPM/e.t.c....
As maintainer of fpcupdeluxe, I did have a look at their cross-compile setup. CT did a (very) good job regarding this.
CT has one main advantage: they release CT as as a single all-in-one solution. And that actually works.

Fpcupdeluxe is an installer. It installs from online sources. These sources change by the day (or even by the minute).
It gives you freedom of choice. Real-world example: you may choose to install FPC 2.0.0 together with Lazarus trunk. Meaning: not all combi's of FPC/Lazarus/Third-party are working.

CT and Fpcupdeluxe are different beasts. It makes no sense to compare them. They will never be comparable: fpcupdeluxe will always remain just an installer from online sources by its legacy.

ps:
one (minor) special fpcupdeluxe-cross-feature not (yet) available with CT: crosscompile towards Darwin ... ;-)

avra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2514
    • Additional info
Re: CT slope
« Reply #14 on: August 21, 2017, 10:42:30 am »
My Moral says "it's not because it's free that you've the right to appropriate, forkers!" even more, "as it"s free, IT DESERVES Respect, and mentioning of the original authors is the minimal thing you MUST do"
MUST is too strong word here. Although I personally feel that authors should be respected in a similar way that you do, if license does not explicitly say that something is forbidden, people have the right to asume that it is allowed. Basically they can do anything not explicitly forbidden. With global coverage we have today, you can not asume that something moral in one place is identical in another part of the world. Even if it is for a certain case, doing something immoral or nonethical is not illegal. Doing that might bring you judgement by other people, but it will not get you into jail.

Anyway, if the license says that you must mention authors and you don't then you are clearly violating a license. If the license says that headers must not be removed and you remove them, that is another violation. But if these things are not requested by the license and you do them, then it is legal no matter what someone feels about ethical side and morality of such actions.

I wish PilotLogic was more flexible on this matter because many missunderstandings could be avoided pretty easy and everyone would be happy, but that is not the case and they face some user erosion. I also wish Jon did not react so emotional but he did and negative publicity will be there to stay.

I wish you have looked at older threads where this CT issue has been already heavily discussed before another flame war on the same topic was born. Since forum has a search button, I do not see the point to go through that all over again and I feel that this topic should be locked.
ct2laz - Conversion between Lazarus and CodeTyphon
bithelpers - Bit manipulation for standard types
pasettimino - Siemens S7 PLC lib

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2018