Recent

Author Topic: CT slope  (Read 21114 times)

sam707

  • Guest
Re: CT slope
« Reply #30 on: August 21, 2017, 11:17:04 pm »
I ME MYSELF , I MEAN MY uncontroled body on that blue ball dancing in that UNKNOWN Universe, AM a Hater! OKAY

very good point around licenses @RAW! I DID NEVER care 'licenses' and never have been crooked when I dont want to! (Okay in C++ world, but concepts are alike)

Good to know I am a Hater! It's gonna make a big difference in History books 100 years after my death HAHAHAHAHHAHAH

So I won't waste my time studying licenses, @Juha! I stand on my big bad COMMON SENSE! which also tells me that in 100 years, every crooks, robbers, haters, saints, bananas, shrimps, bicycles, will be packeted in almost same wooden boxes, 6 feets underground (btw these times i will say hello to M. Gates in his CP/M DOS goldy box hehehehe)

KISSES in the wheel of Time
« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 11:32:49 pm by sam707 »

JuhaManninen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4459
  • I like bugs.
Re: CT slope
« Reply #31 on: August 21, 2017, 11:42:01 pm »
.. 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.
Did they hide the author info completely? Ok, that would be wrong.
Your comp is not there any more but I hope somebody would study the existing components in CT. Is the author info still removed from somewhere or is the issue fixed?
Maybe I will study it in a cold winter day but not now. It is a low priority issue for me.
I have learned it is important for many people (which is perfectly ok) and I wonder why nobody has made a clear list of violated components.
Mostly Lazarus trunk and FPC 3.2 on Manjaro Linux 64-bit.

bee

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 393
Re: CT slope
« Reply #32 on: August 22, 2017, 05:51:45 am »
I wonder why nobody has made a clear list of violated components.

Maybe someone had already made it but then either the list was eliminated or the related source code was removed by CT, so the evidence is no longer available. I believe I've seen it once somewhere long ago in CT's forum which then deleted by CT forum's admin. I don't care about CT anymore since then and discourage its usage, because I don't like their attitude toward Lazarus (and component makers) and also their way of resolving this license issue. The original FPC and Lazarus are already good enough for me.
-Bee-

A long time pascal lover.

balazsszekely

  • Guest
Re: CT slope
« Reply #33 on: August 22, 2017, 06:48:12 am »
It just happens that I backported a few components from CT. The reference to the original author(s) in some form or another is there. Usually removed from the lpk file, but available in a txt somewhere. The quality of some packages are quite amazing, in my opinion they did a really good job. For completeness, I re-added the original authors name to the backported lpks and I also added "PilotLogic Software House" in an appreciation for they work.  :)

hnb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 270
Re: CT slope
« Reply #34 on: August 22, 2017, 09:56:37 am »
It just happens that I backported a few components from CT. The reference to the original author(s) in some form or another is there. Usually removed from the lpk file, but available in a txt somewhere. The quality of some packages are quite amazing, in my opinion they did a really good job.
That is true. Finally they have 5 regular developers + 20 (students?). Very sad that CT doesn't have any public repository :( .
Checkout NewPascal initiative and donate beer - ready to use tuned FPC compiler + Lazarus for mORMot project

best regards,
Maciej Izak

JuhaManninen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4459
  • I like bugs.
Re: CT slope
« Reply #35 on: August 22, 2017, 10:46:23 am »
That is true. Finally they have 5 regular developers + 20 (students?).
Wow, that makes more active developers than in Lazarus project. Their effort is divided between the forks of Lazarus, component packages and maybe FPC but still a rather big team!
I wonder if they are still able to backport changes from Lazarus into their fork. We have seen big changes due to desktops, HiDPI and other refactorings.

Quote
Very sad that CT doesn't have any public repository :( .
There is no revision control repository but all the sources are available!
I would ask everybody to backport their favorite cool CT improvement in the IDE or LCL back to our project.
Copying code from others is the whole idea of GPL. It is the reason why GPL was created in the first place.
Why am I still the only person who backported one IDE feature, the small button at the end of component palette?
I will apply such patches if only somebody makes them.
Stop whining, go and copy code shamelessly!
« Last Edit: August 22, 2017, 10:49:01 am by JuhaManninen »
Mostly Lazarus trunk and FPC 3.2 on Manjaro Linux 64-bit.

hnb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 270
Re: CT slope
« Reply #36 on: August 22, 2017, 11:03:02 am »
Wow, that makes more active developers than in Lazarus project. Their effort is divided between the forks of Lazarus, component packages and maybe FPC but still a rather big team!
I wonder if they are still able to backport changes from Lazarus into their fork. We have seen big changes due to desktops, HiDPI and other refactorings.
I guess: for me it looks like some IT university (the main author is PhD) + some commercial works. They can delegate many of the work to students without cost (and it makes sense why there is +20 persons not in the main team).

The backporting of changes is not that hard (from my experience with Sparta). WinMerge + small tool to write copyright headers and for changing extensions is enough (many work can be automated). In practice when you know what to do even single person can handle big merge within 1-3 hours.

There is no revision control repository but all the sources are available!
I would ask everybody to backport their favorite cool CT improvement in the IDE or LCL back to our project.
Copying code from others is the whole idea of GPL. It is the reason why GPL was created in the first place.
Why am I still the only person who backported one IDE feature, the small button at the end of component palette?
I will apply such patches if only somebody makes them. Stop whining, go and copy code with no shame!
Yes sure almost all sources are available (except TyphonCenter and 3rd binary utils like 7z). I just try to say that repository would be good for us (Lazarus devs) for keeping track of changes. I really hate to download one big package just to extract their current work >.<.
Checkout NewPascal initiative and donate beer - ready to use tuned FPC compiler + Lazarus for mORMot project

best regards,
Maciej Izak

JuhaManninen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4459
  • I like bugs.
Re: CT slope
« Reply #37 on: August 22, 2017, 12:59:29 pm »
I DID NEVER care 'licenses' and never have been crooked when I dont want to!
Sorry but I insist you to be more specific. You have implied in many sentences that CT stole something and they are crooks. This whole thread is about CT after all, isn't it?
So, what did they steal and how? Please explain.

Quote
So I won't waste my time studying licenses, @Juha! I stand on my big bad COMMON SENSE!
Does your common sense say that GPL code should not be copied? If so, then your common sense is wrong.
You really should study licenses at least so much that you understand the issues you write about.
For starters, here are the 4 freedoms that I mentioned earlier:
• Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
• Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. (Access to the source code is a precondition for this.)
• Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
• Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (Access to the source code is a precondition for this.)

They are copied from Chapter 3 here:
  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fsfs/rms-essays.pdf
The GPL is build around those freedoms. If you don't agree with them, then maybe you should not work with projects using GPL as their license.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2017, 02:24:50 pm by JuhaManninen »
Mostly Lazarus trunk and FPC 3.2 on Manjaro Linux 64-bit.

JuhaManninen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4459
  • I like bugs.
Re: CT slope
« Reply #38 on: August 22, 2017, 01:03:56 pm »
Yes sure almost all sources are available (except TyphonCenter and 3rd binary utils like 7z).
All (L)GPL sources are available.

Quote
I just try to say that repository would be good for us (Lazarus devs) for keeping track of changes. I really hate to download one big package just to extract their current work >.<.
Of course it would be better and would help track some bug fixes.
However it is not there so we must use the sources as-is.
Mostly Lazarus trunk and FPC 3.2 on Manjaro Linux 64-bit.

Thaddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14210
  • Probably until I exterminate Putin.
Re: CT slope
« Reply #39 on: August 22, 2017, 01:28:38 pm »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Kerrigan
CT is Tonya Harding.
It may (or may not) be legal, but CT walks on very thin ice. Removal of copyright claims is illegal under lgpl.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2017, 01:38:21 pm by Thaddy »
Specialize a type, not a var.

hnb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 270
Re: CT slope
« Reply #40 on: August 22, 2017, 01:32:08 pm »
All (L)GPL sources are available.
yup. Even more is available, not all packages/components sources are under LGPL related licences (probably can be found MIT, MPL and more...).  :). CodeTyphon is definitely not that evil as described by Jon Lennart Aasenden. IMO the only seriously legal issue is unclear status of ORCA library. Closed source TyphonCenter is also legal and can coexist with GPL code in single archive (even this case is somewhere stated in GPL pages).

I have ban on their forum but the whole idea of CodeTyphon is rather positive for Lazarus (but not for me personally). I don't agree with their policy but finally it is only policy.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2017, 01:34:08 pm by hnb »
Checkout NewPascal initiative and donate beer - ready to use tuned FPC compiler + Lazarus for mORMot project

best regards,
Maciej Izak

JuhaManninen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4459
  • I like bugs.
Re: CT slope
« Reply #41 on: August 22, 2017, 03:12:28 pm »
It may (or may not) be legal, but CT walks on very thin ice. Removal of copyright claims is illegal under lgpl.
No no no!
GPL or LGPL take no stance for copyright claims or information about original author.
I tried to find such a sentence when I studied the licenses but I could not because there isn't any.

I have understood there is a copyright law. I don't know where to find it but I believe it exists.
It means the copyright holder must be mentioned also for (L)GPL code, regardless of what the license says.

GetMem wrote he studied the CT components and the reference to original authors in some form or another is there, at least in a text file.
It should satisfy the copyright law (although I have not studied it).

Thaddy, why are you doing this? You have an obsession to bash CT with any excuse. When one argument turns out to be a lie, you pull another from your hat. For example now you wrote wrong information about LGPL, lied about it. The purpose clearly is to turn this thread into yet-another abstract FUD against CT where facts, opinions and lies mix together so that nobody knows what is what.
Thaddy, I ask you as anybody else to stick with facts. If you still claim that CT violates the copyright rules, please at least get the exact evidence and details.
This feels so completely useless, we could have used the time better. At least I have many things to do but now I look after FUD and lies in a forum thread.  :(

I guess Thaddy and many others are mesmerised and hypnotized by Jon Lennart's blogs. Oh boy, I can imagine how he enjoys it! He is extremely good in manipulation.
Again and again it happens that somebody reads the blogs and then writes here in a state of holy anger. It is like a hypnotic religious experience, facts just don't matter for them. The same arguments continue even if you prove they are lies.
Again and again ...
There was "timofonic", now "sam707" even explicitly mentioned his inspiration. Thaddy continues the same thing ...
Are there any anti-hypnosis rehab centers for such cases?

Anyway, the next post containing lies or abstract FUD in this thread will be deleted without questions.
Mostly Lazarus trunk and FPC 3.2 on Manjaro Linux 64-bit.

Handoko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5131
  • My goal: build my own game engine using Lazarus
Re: CT slope
« Reply #42 on: August 22, 2017, 04:33:19 pm »
May I have some words here?

First lets me explain, I'm not here to defend or fight? Here I have some questions, I already got the answers from the Internet but (because English is not my native language) I cannot fully understand.

I ever read, that certain licenses cannot be re-licensed or sublicensed (easily). I remember many years ago, I saw CT just mentioned freeware. Does it mean they changed all of the GPL, LGPL, MPL, ... things to simply freeware. Is it allowed?

I ever knew some components from different licensed cannot be distributed together even they are both in open source. If I remember correctly, that was GLScene and ... (oh I forget). Is it okay that CT collected all the free components from different licenses and distributes them together in a single download?

Some reading materials:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses#General_comparison
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility

Actually I do not need answers. Because I simply don't care much about CT. Not because I think they're bad but because I don't use it.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2017, 04:42:50 pm by Handoko »

lainz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4460
    • https://lainz.github.io/
Re: CT slope
« Reply #43 on: August 22, 2017, 07:07:42 pm »
A thing I can say is that they have custom packages, for example BGRAControls is not the same I release. They have old components I removed from the package for example, and missing newer ones.

If you license it open source and worry by the license or authorship of the work, is something crazy. If you need to worry about the license you choose too much, then don't do open source.

Open Source is divided often with two big license types: open only for open source projects (LazPaint - I mean you can seel it modified but you need to provide the sources, so it's open source), and open for open source and commercial projects (BGRABitmap - LGPL, so you don't need to provide your source if you don't change the library, for example if you just compile an application wich uses bgrabitmap).

If you're doing a commercial project, then worry about using or not one or all the components shipped with CT, but nothing more. If something don't get you sure you're doing right, don't use it. Is that easy.

I don't mind if they distribute a custom version of BGRAControls, because it's LGPL, free for all, to say it easy. If my name is not there, anyone can google bgracontrols and see the full list of people that contributed in the original source.

The people is not as stupid I think, they can google anything in doubt.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2017, 07:30:28 pm by lainz »

hnb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 270
Re: CT slope
« Reply #44 on: August 22, 2017, 07:34:51 pm »
The people is not as stupid I think, they can google anything in doubt.

maybe not stupid but lazy for sure
Checkout NewPascal initiative and donate beer - ready to use tuned FPC compiler + Lazarus for mORMot project

best regards,
Maciej Izak

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2018