Recent

Author Topic: CT slope  (Read 21115 times)

Akira1364

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 561
Re: CT slope
« Reply #45 on: August 22, 2017, 09:46:21 pm »
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).

I think they're for the most part just a regular commercial software company... not sure that they're directly connected to any particular school, although they do seem to employ a lot of students. I believe I saw it stated once that they make most of their money writing government software on a contractual basis (possibly for the Greek Ministry of Defense? Considering that Sternas Stefanos, the programmer you mentioned, is also AFAIK a former Greek air force pilot/officer...) which is apparently enough to allow them to focus on CodeTyphon as a sideproject of sorts. 
« Last Edit: August 22, 2017, 09:51:00 pm by Akira1364 »

sam707

  • Guest
Re: CT slope
« Reply #46 on: August 23, 2017, 02:38:45 am »
Ok
let me reclarify what is clear

1) I aint a lawyer, I am a programmer:

meaning I cant spend a week on matrices rotations to get an alien smile on screen, or debug step by step a defragmentaton of a sdcard. BUT defNO I won't waste my time deciphering licenses, it is my lawyers enjoyment (their wives apart LOL, that might explain why some of these gurls want a drink with me)

2) I Started this thread, not hypnotizomationned by an idiot or an other, putting its hand on fire and crying he got burnt, BUT, because all the facts that made me use CT are now obsolete (I did explain fpcupdeluxe + laz branch fixes + online packages man, gives me almost same pleasure and feeling than CT) WHY would I haul 3Go of Laz and 3Go of CT doing the same things (for me) on a computer?

3) feelings or not, I do not like forum bans I've heard about, when authorS claim for their copyrights comments... at least a "thank you". And in a worldwide crisis, I am (as Major Hater) involved in that young programmers can put on their curriculum vitae, references from what they did for major projects (I have explained it before, here)

These reasons drove me (lately) to a choice =

A) use the new 1.8 laz distro, I install with online components at my own taste
B) use CT all-in-one (which also is no more compatible, pkg renam., fileexts, etc)

so I choose A) remember my proverb?? "If you can, better talk with god, than with one of his saints"

Hate On HAHAHAHAHAH WTF "hate"???
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 02:53:16 am by sam707 »

JuhaManninen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4460
  • I like bugs.
Re: CT slope
« Reply #47 on: August 23, 2017, 09:17:02 am »
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 studied the issue. It turns out to be a very poorly documented licensing scheme. See details here:
 http://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,34602.msg228923.html#msg228923
Yes this irritates me, too. Why can't they explain it properly? It leads to confusion and wasted time+energy here.
Still, the fact remains that they did not change license of any code, and they are not planning to do so. Please let's stick with the facts.
The FreeWare refers to their own closed source "Typhon Center".

Thaddy has repeated the same false accusation even after the issue was studied and explained:
 http://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,21266.msg249868.html#msg249868
I believe he will continue it also in future, just for fun.

Quote
I ever knew some components from different licensed cannot be distributed together even they are both in open source.
Yes, different licensed can be distributed together. Or, is there some new rule to prevent it?
If it is forbidden then we are screwed, too. The IndustrialStuff package has components with many licenses.
Do you notice how FUD spreads? You have read a false piece of information somewhere (maybe the infamous blogs) and then you repeat it...

Quote
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?
GLScene and Orca and FireMonkey. Yes. However it has nothing to do with distributing different licenses. It was about Orca violating the license which now belongs to Embarcadero.
In reality its license situation is messy. Embarcadero itself may violate the license of GLScene. In any case they don't care because Orca is obsolete from their POV compared to the now advanced FireMonkey.

Anyway this gives a good excuse for some people to attact CT. I think this is the only case where the accusations have some substance, assuming they have fixed all the copyright holder issues.
If they removed Orca, there would be nothing to complain about. Damn!
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 09:33:41 am by JuhaManninen »
Mostly Lazarus trunk and FPC 3.2 on Manjaro Linux 64-bit.

JuhaManninen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4460
  • I like bugs.
Re: CT slope
« Reply #48 on: August 23, 2017, 09:28:06 am »
I don't mind if they distribute a custom version of BGRAControls, because it's LGPL, free for all, to say it easy.
Yes, LGPL allows distributing custom versions, as long as the modified source is published. That's the whole idea.

Quote
If my name is not there, anyone can google bgracontrols and see the full list of people that contributed in the original source.
This kind of implies : "They violate the copyright law but I don't care".
Do they violate it? My understanding is the issues are fixed. I was hoping to get exact proof for any such accusation.
I know your meaning is good but the sentence adds to the FUD and confusion.
Mostly Lazarus trunk and FPC 3.2 on Manjaro Linux 64-bit.

Handoko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5132
  • My goal: build my own game engine using Lazarus
Re: CT slope
« Reply #49 on: August 23, 2017, 10:48:17 am »
Anyway this gives a good excuse for some people to attact CT.
Actually no one wants to attack CT. They just want more clarifications. If CT was more cooperative, things will be solved easily. But it's getting worse now. I don't think this discussion is bad or an attempt for attacking. If we keep our head cool, it can turn as a very educative discussion.

Still, the fact remains that they did not change license of any code, and they are not planning to do so. Please let's stick with the facts.
The FreeWare refers to their own closed source "Typhon Center".
Do they keep the license information/notices of the packages? If yes, then no problem. Because I know some licenses do not allow the license information to be removed. At least BSD:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

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?
GLScene and Orca and FireMonkey. Yes. However it has nothing to do with distributing different licenses. It was about Orca violating the license which now belongs to Embarcadero.

I guess you thought I was trying to attack CT. No, I read that article long before CT ever published on the Internet. Maybe it was GLScene or maybe I was wrong. I remember it said, that cannot be bundled in the CD distribute on '????' (I forget) magazine because of license issue, but anyone can download it from the website as a separate distribution. This is what I remember.


I think I have enough. I will be better to spend my time on programming rather than discussing the thing I'm not good at.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 10:53:36 am by Handoko »

JuhaManninen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4460
  • I like bugs.
Re: CT slope
« Reply #50 on: August 23, 2017, 11:04:28 am »
... I know some licenses do not allow the license information to be removed. At least BSD:
Yes, the same thing with GPL and with every other FOSS license, as far as I know.
Mostly Lazarus trunk and FPC 3.2 on Manjaro Linux 64-bit.

Thaddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14215
  • Probably until I exterminate Putin.
Re: CT slope
« Reply #51 on: August 23, 2017, 12:13:42 pm »
Thaddy has repeated the same false accusation even after the issue was studied and explained:
 http://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,21266.msg249868.html#msg249868
I believe he will continue it also in future, just for fun.
I never made false accusations. It is at least unclear. On your suggestion I even adapted my opinion, although with reluctance. It is in my opinion - however you look at it - bad behaviour, legally solid or not.
Removing credits is not done. That's the last I will write about this.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 12:16:20 pm by Thaddy »
Specialize a type, not a var.

JuhaManninen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4460
  • I like bugs.
Re: CT slope
« Reply #52 on: August 23, 2017, 01:23:27 pm »
I never made false accusations. It is at least unclear. On your suggestion I even adapted my opinion, although with reluctance. It is in my opinion - however you look at it - bad behaviour, legally solid or not.
Removing credits is not done. That's the last I will write about this.
You checked the sources? Cool!
Sorry for doubting your sincerity. Their web-page is extremely confusing about the licenses, I agree with that.
The positive side is that their improved (L)GPL code is all there waiting to be copied and further improved. If somebody backports some and creates a patch, I can commit it to Lazarus sources. I can study their improvements myself later but not now.
Mostly Lazarus trunk and FPC 3.2 on Manjaro Linux 64-bit.

Akira1364

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 561
Re: CT slope
« Reply #53 on: August 26, 2017, 04:01:14 am »
Just to clarify: GLScene is completely open-source in all regards and always has been (under the MPL license), since it was first released in 1999 or so. Eugene Kryukov, who formerly owned a company called "KSDev", sold two separate products: one called VGScene, which was his own entirely original Direct2D based vector-graphics API (think along the lines of CrossCodebot, basically...) and another called DXScene, which was a 3D component that was itself a straight-up fork of GLScene (although heavily stripped-down and simplified) that used Direct3D 9 as a rendering backend instead of OpenGL.

Embarcadero bought out his company in 2011 or so and combined those two products into a single product called FireMonkey. VGScene became what is now Firemonkey 2D, and DXScene became what is now FireMonkey HD. However, it was later discovered that Kryukov had not really respected the terms of MPL himself while developing as KSDev and using code that originated in GLScene, but no one had noticed since the company just didn't have nearly the same visibility as Embarcadero did at the point they bought him out. This has left Embarcadero in a vaguely questionable state themselves regarding the license ever since.

That being said, the reality is that since GLScene is again an open source project maintained by volunteers, even if someone did want to take legal action against Embarcadero it just wouldn't be financially viable. This is also, in turn, half of the reason Embarcadero doesn't care about things like "Orca" (which is not Firemonkey, but just a fork of Kryukovs original VGScene and DXScene from 2010 or so).... they're aware that they too would not come up entirely clean under thorough legal scrutiny. The other half is, as Juha said, that they just don't generally see it as a financial threat as the code that Orca consists of is extremely primitive compared to what Firemonkey has become nowadays.

Hopefully that makes everything a little easier to understand for everyone! Can certainly be confusing with all the "Scene" names, I know, haha.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2017, 08:43:30 am by Akira1364 »

Thaddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14215
  • Probably until I exterminate Putin.
Re: CT slope
« Reply #54 on: August 26, 2017, 10:46:19 am »
You seem to have the same kind of inside information I used to have before 2005?  8-)
My source(s) do not confirm this, but I suspect you are right. Although I usually can substantiate the historical evidence. Just curious.
Specialize a type, not a var.

Handoko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5132
  • My goal: build my own game engine using Lazarus
Re: CT slope
« Reply #55 on: September 19, 2017, 06:19:48 am »
@JuhaManninen

I use LibreCAD occasionally, while searching information about it I found something interesting today.

Quote
As the GNU LibreDWG library is released under GPLv3 it can't be used by GPLv2 licensed LibreCAD (and FreeCAD) as their licenses are incompatible.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreCAD#GPLv3_vs_GPLv2_controversy

Even GPLv3 and GPLv2 are both open source, they are not compatible. Unbelievable, if it is true then CT may need to be worry.

Licensing issue is an important topic for programmers. This discussion is good to continue if we focus on knowledge sharing not for bashing CT.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 06:32:03 am by Handoko »

zamtmn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 594
Re: CT slope
« Reply #56 on: September 19, 2017, 06:58:06 am »
rays of hatred to CT


@Handoko
LibreCAD community writes their own dwg implementation, QCAD uses Teigha. No problem with LibreDWG license))

>>I use LibreCAD occasionally
You looked zcad?
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 07:00:27 am by zamtmn »

Handoko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5132
  • My goal: build my own game engine using Lazarus
Re: CT slope
« Reply #57 on: September 19, 2017, 07:51:02 am »
I do not hate CT. If I ever said something wrong that caused others think I hate it, then I'm sorry.

I know ZCad, I tested it. But it does not have the features I need for serious architectural drawing. I've been monitoring ZCad for years, but the development seems very slow. I want to help the development but my programming skills are not good enough. Good work friend.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 07:52:33 am by Handoko »

JuhaManninen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4460
  • I like bugs.
Re: CT slope
« Reply #58 on: September 19, 2017, 11:13:06 am »
Even GPLv3 and GPLv2 are both open source, they are not compatible. Unbelievable, if it is true then CT may need to be worry.
I don't know the details. Does CT mix LibreDWG with something else?
I personally find such issues boring and annoying. It is about nitpicking about license details and forgetting the fundamental idea. :(

Quote
Licensing issue is an important topic for programmers. This discussion is good to continue if we focus on knowledge sharing not for bashing CT.
Yes I guess it is important, although the discussion can be counter-productive. Some people almost managed to turn GPL into its grotesque caricature by mixing lies and FUD and new extra "rules".
The fundamental idea of GPL is freedom, as long as modified sources are published. Somehow people managed to turn that into its very opposite!
GPL is very idealistic. Unfortunately it reminds of other idealistic movements. How well did they work out? Not very well. I have fantasized about if Christian religion or Communism would have been destroyed at their very beginning, before they were used as excuses to kill and persecute people.
Now the same symptoms are showing around GPL. It is clearly too idealistic. There is a correlation: the more idealistic a doctrine, the more surely it is turned into its very opposite by some people.
Should GPL be destroyed before anything very bad happens?
I can maybe remove lies and FUD in this forum but in the long run I don't see much hope. I can imagine in far future people being jailed and persecuted after copying and modifying GPL code. If this sounds like a joke, please remember how fierce were the attacks against CT and what were the arguments.

I kind of like the "Do What the Fuck You Want To Public License" :
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
It makes accusations of license violations very difficult. :)
On the other hand, if all (L)GPL code was now turned into WTFPL, big corporations would make it closed source immediately. Now they must publish their improved sources which is good.

Handoko, if you must discuss the license details, at least try to remember the big picture behind those details.
A new thread for it would be good, this is not about CT so much.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2017, 11:22:42 am by JuhaManninen »
Mostly Lazarus trunk and FPC 3.2 on Manjaro Linux 64-bit.

korba812

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 392
Re: CT slope
« Reply #59 on: March 26, 2018, 02:08:48 am »
So what about Orca? Maybe Embarcadero/Idera could refer to the topic and clearly determine the status of this package. Is there an embarcadero employee here (preferably lawyer)?

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2018