Embedded designer

[BeRo]

Please don't do it sir. The Pascal community isn't as large as in the past. You already mentioned that you wish they to remove the codes, let's give them time and see. Actually you can take legal action, but there always new 'bad guys' appear and losing money for them is not worth, unless they are commercial companies which you can sue them and get money.

In any case, I will at least wait a little longer before I do further thoughts about this, of course. These are just my first thoughts on how to fight back.

At least I find his behavior and his current request very impudent of him now, as if he wouldn't be aware that the GPL license is "infectious" here, since the GPL license has a "viral" nature in this case, and Lazarus itself is after all GPL-licensed, and the LCL is modified-LGPL-licensed.

[eljo]

First of all, I understand the feelings of most of the people and their reaction but it is not time to over react or allow emotions to overwhelm our decision process.
the lazarus IDE has 2 licenses. GPL and LGPL with extension. the intf part of the IDE is under lgpl with extension to allow for commercial/closed source addins to be written. Having said that the extension only allows non lgpl code to use it not change it. which means that if
1) the code posted is using only the intf part of the IDE
and
2) no other gpl unit is directly linked to those units mentioned above
then pilot logic has the right to share the code of those units under any license they see fit.
so the question is what is the license that PL is using for the above units?
sorry I only use and install released versions and I generaly avoid the development tree so I haven't got or accessed the new code yet.

PS

Didn't sparta got open sourced ? isn't preferable to port that designer instead of wasting time on PL and its products?

As for the open source component authors in this forum if you do want to take some action you can simple add an exception to your releases saying that everyone can use your components except CT.

[BeRo]

1) the code posted is using only the intf part of the IDE
and
2) no other gpl unit is directly linked to those units mentioned above
then pilot logic has the right to share the code of those units under any license they see fit.
so the question is what is the license that PL is using for the above units?

This is, as how I understand the GPL license itself, not relevant with the GPL as long as it ends up in the same binary. This is also the reason why the modified-LGPL with the static linking exception exists. Because with the normal unmodified LGPL you would have to use the RTL, LCL, and so on as external dynamic linked .DLL or .SO library files.

[eljo]

1) the code posted is using only the intf part of the IDE
and
2) no other gpl unit is directly linked to those units mentioned above
then pilot logic has the right to share the code of those units under any license they see fit.
so the question is what is the license that PL is using for the above units?

This is, as how I understand the GPL license itself, not relevant with the GPL as long as it ends up in the same binary.

True but since the IDE does not support dynamic packages or external plugins the team added an exception on the interface part of the IDE to allow commercial/closed source addins to be compiled in directly to the IDE. Now the lazarus team has to
1) make sure that the code in question uses only the interface part of the IDE
2) decide if its better on the long run to rewrite the designer or face the CT trolls.

There are a lot of good developers on this forums that would help to write a new embedded designer or port the sparta designer over just to avoid coupling them self with the lowlifes of PL.

In any case just to spite the PL I would make sure that the designer is an addin to lazarus make an external package and post it on github under GPL with an exception that forbids CTand PL to use it.
Just for the fun of it

[AFFRIZA 亜風実]

This is maybe my imagination. It more looks like a KZDesktop rather than PL's own package.
I'll stick for Sparta for now, the CT's form designer looks so problematic (Personally I think that's a mindbogglingly bad idea to use it in Lazarus). Did they (PL) have any permission to use KZDesktop property? I think after I know this I want to contact the KZDesktop owner that his/her codes being used in CT.

Better you backported the KZDesktop than this... Ah.

[eljo]

This is maybe my imagination. It more looks like a KZDesktop rather than PL's own package.
I'll stick for Sparta for now, it looks so problematic.

I remember something along those lines too. I haven't looked at the code though so I can't express any valid opinion. Is there any link for the source code of the sparta designer? I'd like to evaluate the cost for porting it to the current Lazarus if possible.

[trev]

I just read the PL EULA. It appears to be a collection of cuts and pastes from other software licenses with PL interpolations and does not actually make a lot of sense especially in certain places. Whether it is even legally enforceable is debatable.

The clause on reverse engineering made me laugh the most

[AFFRIZA 亜風実]

I remember something along those lines too. I haven't looked at the code though so I can't express any valid opinion. Is there any link for the source code of the sparta designer? I'd like to evaluate the cost for porting it to the current Lazarus if possible.

Maybe, did you mean KZDesktop? https://sourceforge.net/projects/kzdesktop/
Better backport this, it's LGPL license. So, no worries. Rather than using CT's knock-off.

[BeRo]

Is there any link for the source code of the sparta designer? I'd like to evaluate the cost for porting it to the current Lazarus if possible.

You can find the src for the sparta docked form designer at https://svn.freepascal.org/svn/lazarus/trunk/components/sparta/dockedformeditor/ which compiles with Lazarus SVN trunk, but it has various focus and redraw issues at runtime now, for example see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPHYc9eYbNI

[eljo]

I remember something along those lines too. I haven't looked at the code though so I can't express any valid opinion. Is there any link for the source code of the sparta designer? I'd like to evaluate the cost for porting it to the current Lazarus if possible.

Maybe, did you mean KZDesktop? https://sourceforge.net/projects/kzdesktop/
Better backport this, it's LGPL license. So, no worries. Rather than using CT's knock-off.

thank you that is a starting point but I'm looking for the sparta designer code that you mentioned earlier, I'd like to download it if possible.

[eljo]

Is there any link for the source code of the sparta designer? I'd like to evaluate the cost for porting it to the current Lazarus if possible.

You can find the src for the sparta docked form designer at https://svn.freepascal.org/svn/lazarus/trunk/components/sparta/dockedformeditor/

thank you! lets see how hard this might be.

[BeRo]

]thank you! lets see how hard this might be.

As said, it still compiles with Lazarus SVN trunk, but it has various focus and redraw issues at runtime now, for example see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPHYc9eYbNI

[AFFRIZA 亜風実]

thank you that is a starting point but I'm looking for the sparta designer code that you mentioned earlier, I'd like to download it if possible.

It's already included in current Lazarus stable and trunk I think, and it's quite stable on Lazarus 2.0.4-2.0.6, but it's broken in the trunk, so, no need to download it separately. 

[eljo]

Oops, .
I do not like the embedded form designer at all even when I tried the docked layout I had the form designer undocked, floating. If I remember correctly all the docked interfaces I tested had a double title bar, the window title and a second bar bellow it for drag/drop support which made it atrocious to look and use, so I never used them.

[AFFRIZA 亜風実]

Since I have also a legal personal protection insurance for companies and businesses, which also cover such foreign cases against other companies and businesses, I am just thinking about whether I should really take legal action against CT or not, at least in the case of pl_Vulkan of the missing mention of my person at the generated vulkanlib.pas, but the other stuff are actually license-technically okay, since these are (l)gpl or zlib licensed from me. Because after all it would cost me 150 Euro insurance excess.   

So, what do you think, guys? What should I do? At least in the pl_Vulkan case it is a real shame on the side of Pilotlogic.

I agree with this, PilotLogic is actually an Embarrassment to the Pascal Community. They're weasel and they're chicken.

"let's give them time and see"?
It's has been 4 years now, but there's nothing is changed. If someone has no problem to deal using law with it. Why not?