CT slope

[Thaddy]

If PilotLogic was on something like github with their development versions I would be a very happy man and could probably help.
I never had problems (well, the normal ones) with the quality. Only with accessibility and controllability and sloppy licensing. (calling it freeware is incorrect. It is only the binaries that are freeware)

[hnb]

About NewPascal - NewPascal soon will be part of official FPC/Lazarus effort - some kind of incubator. More stable than "night builds" and less perfect than stable releases.

When I was looking into CodeTyphon last time, FPC sources was almost the same (minor non important changes for most of users) with one exception - they have reverted one of modules and this decision may brings many unexpected effects. AFAIK they never report any of the bug to official bugtracker, and nothing was ported back.

Their fork of Lazarus has many modifications. Cooperation between Lazarus and Typhon is impossible. In their opinion Lazarus is dead project and Lazarus developers are without vision and progress of Lazarus is too slow. Every interested person can find such opinions on their forum. Each kind of cooperation means slow down for Typhon because some changes needs to be discussed and they don't like discussions , any different opinion in many cases means ban in their community.

CodeTyphon is neutral for me.

[Thaddy]

Still I would like to see te newpascal fork as a branch, not a fork.
Branches I can test. Forks with hidded sourecode I can't possibly test.

[sam707]

Few last words and I am out of this thread:

let me use a little imagination

actually I am old (52) and working for fun on a lazarus project that I decide to give (when Ok) to the community. I mean 'give' the source with no resstriction.

but I think that particular young programmers seeking for jobs, would be happy to make 'free' parts, libs, etc..., if their names would apear (enforcing their curriculum vitae something). 

"Good reputation is better than golden belt" (proverb)

removing their names and copyrights, being disrespectful even if no license assertion, could have a major siide effect =

"Once you put a finger on a flame, you won't put it twice, it burns!" (other proverb)

they might stop giving their work, despite the community needs.

As an old bad wolf, I know exactly what I do, when giving away my code, but young people can be candid, and count on a kindness that do not always exist

[Thaddy]

actually I am old (52) and working for fun on a lazarus project that I decide to give (when Ok) to the community. I mean 'give' the source with no resstriction.

That's not old. It is just above average...

[sam707]

LoL grumpy are ye single? hahahaha

[hnb]

Still I would like to see te newpascal fork as a branch, not a fork.
Branches I can test. Forks with hidded sourecode I can't possibly test.

NewPascal is not fork anymore (btw it never was intended as real fork), source code was never hidden (all available on github), all was all the time transparent and each modification was described. This message is almost like FUD.

[Thaddy]

LoL grumpy are ye single? hahahaha

Nope . My wife is 49 and I am 59 as current today. Note this number changes into a sum of 110 in februari. My mother (doesn't count: sticks to Delphi 7 is 87 and programmer in Pascal as well since 1996).

[Thaddy]

Still I would like to see te newpascal fork as a branch, not a fork.
Branches I can test. Forks with hidded sourecode I can't possibly test.

NewPascal is not fork anymore (btw it never was intended as real fork), source code was never hidden (all available on github), all was all the time transparent and each modification was described. This message is almost like FUD.

My sincere apologies. I seem to miss the sourcecode from new features all the time. But I know it appears in trunk sometimes inexplicably..

[JuhaManninen]

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

We are not talking about "common sense". We are talking about serious accusations against CT for violating (L)GPL which turned out to be lies.

I am actually trying to make a soft that I will give to the lazarus with no restriction (that is my choice for it),

It must be restricted by GPL / LGPL like the rest of Lazarus sources.

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)

How is this relevant to CT? Have they stolen something?

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

You have repeated in many posts that CT has changed or removed author info.
Can you be more specific please. My understanding is that the few violations against copyright rules (not GPL!) are fixed already.
Can you please list the exact violations. Then we can finally make a list of them somewhere and pass the information to CT in a constructive manner.

You are now clearly just repeating what you read from the hate-blogs. As I wrote they are infested with lies.
You agitated yourself with the blogs and then decided to write here empowered by a holy feeling of righteousness, didn't you?
Remembering how things escalated in the past, all writing about CT must now be very accurate and based on facts.
Fortunately things have calmed down, in this thread actually you are only person still spreading abstract FUD.
Earlier all such threads were locked by Marco and Martin but I don't think it is necessary any more. But sam707, please stick with facts! You are warned.

Please remember that your sense of morality has no relevance when we talk about license violations.
The license is quite unambiguous. It requires that modified source code must be published when binaries built from it are delivered. Simple isn't it? Ok, it has many details but most of them try to ensure the code cannot be turned into closed source by any trick.
Otherwise the goal is freedom. RMS talks about 4 freedoms, counting from 0 .. 3 as good programmers do. Please study the license to get an idea.

[JuhaManninen]

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.

Yes. Because of that he also has many respected high-profile Delphi people as followers in social media and for his blogs.
They give him virtual taps on shoulder after he became offended by yet another grave injustice somewhere.
Go Jon go, continue your good work...
It is quite frightening but it is the name of the game nowadays. Facts don't matter much but an aggressive entertaining story does.

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.

Removal of license headers turned out to be a lie. However they had removed author information from some places, thus violating copyright rules.
Maybe they are all fixed now?
Could you please dive into the issue and figure out the exact real violations. We can then list them somewhere.

During the holy war against CT the most loud agitators did not bother to give evidence. Especially this Jon person refused to mention any examples although it was his main argument against CT.
Forum thread "Stance for hate mails and competing projects" was a turning point. Before that people had thought he represents Lazarus as he had claimed himself. After the forum thread it was clear: He does not.
As can be seen there, he used a well-planned "military" tactics to kill CT. He first gave an impression he represents Lazarus, then licked our asses in a major way. Then he invited his friends to join and prove how evil CT is. Fortunately his crusade failed. CT was saved and so was Lazarus. Earlier I had got personal hate-mails because the evil Lazarus developers want to kill their competition. The mails stopped when the situation was clarified.

Regarding whether they actually fork FPC itself, as far as I can tell they do.

Ok, I stand corrected on this one.

[minesadorada]

CT renamed a longtimer component I wrote and removed the "About" property.

So far, no problem.  It was LGPL and the license was liberal.

I wanted a competent coder to improve the longtimer component but was disappointed.  The only change was to remove any attribution to me - the author of the component.

I simply didn't see the purpose of that.

[RAW]

When it comes to licenses there is one point of view that is very interesting:
So here it comes:

People like to "protect" software with licenses or choose a license for their software,
BUT nobody that I know is able to check worldwide if someone breaks the rules...

 Nobody has got
  1. the time,
  2. the money,
  3. the power,
  4. the inclination
 to go to court and fight for their rights...

So why struggling with and wasting fine time... ???

People always tend to control things that cannot be controlled!
Do you like one easy example: They want to save (control) the planet, but couldn't even control their own eyes... (glasses) !!!
Really that's funny... again and again and again.... always will be funny ... couldn't control their own bodies, but want to control the universe... 

[JuhaManninen]

CT renamed a longtimer component I wrote and removed the "About" property.

This is misleading information again.
IIRC they did not remove the original author info from a ReadMe.txt file or source header comment or such.
They removed a property from the source code which is perfectly allowed by the license.

I simply didn't see the purpose of that.

Yes but apparently they did.
I personally also don't like "About" properties which show in Object Inspector. A text file explaining the license and authors is the right place for such info. I would have removed it, too.

People like to "protect" software with licenses or choose a license for their software,
BUT nobody that I know is able to check worldwide if someone breaks the rules...

If somebody includes a piece of GPL code in a closed source project and compiles the binaries with all optimizations, it is indeed very difficult to detect. Only if a certain bug is reproduced identically then it can be seen as a proof.
With CT however we are talking about a project that publishes all their modified (L)GPL sources.

[minesadorada]

This is misleading information again.
IIRC they did not remove the original author info from a ReadMe.txt file or source header comment or such.
They removed a property from the source code which is perfectly allowed by the license.

No misleading information from me.  I didn't say it was against the licence conditions; I merely said it was purposeless.

.. And yes, they also replaced all the source header comment sections containing my author info and copyright statement.   It was there in case anyone wished to ask for support or contribute changes to the code.

It doesn't matter now, as the component was removed from the CT codebase.