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?