uEControls

[JuhaManninen]

I'm requesting to the codetyphon team to remove the uecontrols from their controls library.

You must request it from PilotLogic directly. I don't think they read this Lazarus forum, especially because there was a flame-war a while ago.

[M.A.R.C.]

Thank you, you are right, I already requested it to them. I put here because to alert to others developers.

Regards.

[M.A.R.C.]

I think that could be informative to others developers to read this thread:
http://www.pilotlogic.com/sitejoom/index.php/forum/pl-bgrauecontrols/3350-uecontrols

Regards.

[hnb]

I think that could be informative to others developers to read this thread:
http://www.pilotlogic.com/sitejoom/index.php/forum/pl-bgrauecontrols/3350-uecontrols

Regards.

Terrible policy, this is one of the reasons why FreeSparta.com was created. The one of first goal was to restore original about box from Lazarus into my Typhon fork...

[taazz]

I'm against about properties my self too. I remove them on all the components I use in my applications. Although minimal the about properties are nothing more than trash eating memory away. One control is not a problem usually all of them is.

[Sternas Stefanos]

I think that could be informative to others developers to read this thread:
http://www.pilotlogic.com/sitejoom/index.php/forum/pl-bgrauecontrols/3350-uecontrols

Regards.

Terrible policy, this is one of the reasons why FreeSparta.com was created. The one of first goal was to restore original about box from Lazarus into my Typhon fork...

So, finally
FreeSparta it's a Fork of Typhon
and you sell Free and Open Source software to your FreeSparta.com ?

[taazz]

I'm against about properties my self too. I remove them on all the components I use in my applications. Although minimal the about properties are nothing more than trash eating memory away. One control is not a problem usually all of them is.

So, finally
FreeSparta it's a Fork of Typhon
and you sell Free and Open Source software to your FreeSparta.com ?

wrong quote I have nothing to do with free sparta.

[hnb]

So, finally
FreeSparta it's a Fork of Typhon
and you sell Free and Open Source software to your FreeSparta.com ?

No. You can't buy Open Source software at FreeSparta.com. It was possible to purchase additional plugins for IDE. Commercial modules were linked ONLY with LGPL parts (this is legal). It was never shipped as "already linked binary file" with Lazarus IDE, GPL/LGPL license has not been violated.

Anyway you can't buy Sparta for a while.

I really like PilotLogic work but removing about box from Lazarus? :O IMO evil karma. 

[M.A.R.C.]

I'm against about properties my self too. I remove them on all the components I use in my applications. Although minimal the about properties are nothing more than trash eating memory away. One control is not a problem usually all of them is.

The "user" of a set of components is the developer that uses the component to build his application. In Lazarus when you right click the icon of a component you can choose open the unit, and the developer can view immediately the origin and author of this component. In typhon (a copy of Lazarus) when you choose to open the unit, you see the wrapper imposed by pitotlogic, any notice about the real author is not shown until you go more deeper. That is why we put the about property,  and in the case of our components it not really a overload. Of course all have the possibility of use a better made set of components without the about property and avoid it. But if someone want to use our work must respect that we written in our copyright notice.

Also a good member of this forum show me this:

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/1.1/#section-3.3

3.3. Description of Modifications.

You must cause all Covered Code to which You contribute to contain a file documenting the changes You made to create that Covered Code and the date of any change. You must include a prominent statement that the Modification is derived, directly or indirectly, from Original Code provided by the Initial Developer and including the name of the Initial Developer in (a) the Source Code, and (b) in any notice in an Executable version or related documentation in which You describe the origin or ownership of the Covered Code.

It is time to continue our good and passionate coding. Best regards.

[Graeme]

In typhon (a copy of Lazarus) when you choose to open the unit, you see the wrapper imposed by pitotlogic, any notice about the real author is not shown until you go more deeper. That is why we put the about property,

I had a look at your original code... You enforce bad design in uEControls - including IDE Registration inside the unit that contains the controls. That is bad practice, and what CodeTyphon guys fixed. They didn't create some "wrapper" - they simply moved IDE specific registration code into a separate registration unit - thus allowing you to have separate Runtime and Design Time packages. Much better organized. It also means the Runtime package can be used on its own, without pulling in Lazarus IDE registration unit dependencies.

[JuhaManninen]

@mrisco, removing an "About" property is on grey area. It is part of the source code which your license allows to modify.
You have a readme.txt file for author and license info. It must be retained obviously and that's what CodeTyphon does, if I understood correctly.

You must cause all Covered Code to which You contribute to contain a file documenting the changes You made to create that Covered Code and the date of any change.

Ok, that is quite strict rule. Using a revision control tool would be everybody's benefit I think. I am amazed that they still don't use one.
Does GPL has this requirement, too? I don't even know the details.

I really like PilotLogic work but removing about box from Lazarus? :O IMO evil karma. 

No, it is called branding. Nothing bad with it.
Think of Linux distros, they have a vital "ecosystem". Ubuntu (and many others) forked from Debian and added its own brand signs everywhere.
Then Mint forked Ubuntu and switched to their own branding. Do you see text "Ubuntu" somewhere in Mint's GUIs? No you don't!
Why don't people oppose those Linux distro forks but they keep opposing Lazarus forks? I am puzzled.

The fact is that GPL license allows to change or remove the About box in Lazarus!
License and author info is in text files which are retained IIRC. This was one of the false accusations against PilotLogic.
During the flame-war I remember comments like:
 Ok, CodeTyphon follows the license but their action is morally wrong.
OMG what non-sense. In other words :
 We have chosen GPL but nobody should follow its ideas because it is immoral.

The fundamental idea of open source licenses is so great! Copy other people's code, improve it and publish it for others to copy from.
Top Linux distros are so good now because they have executed that idea to its full extent.
I would like to see something similar around this project. Why is it opposed by so many people?
CodeTyphon is an inspiration for me. I am impressed of some things they did and want to improve over it. All the source code is there, I had no problems getting it.

[Graeme]

Why is it opposed by so many people?
CodeTyphon is an inspiration for me. I am impressed of some things they did and want to improve over it. All the source code is there, I had no problems getting it.

I fully agree with you. It is as if developers here actually forgot what Open Source Software actually means.

It is nonsense like this that makes me like the BSD license more. With the BSD license you can do pretty much what you want, even commercialise it. And still the open source community often benefits from that too. Think Apple giving back to FreeBSD, iXsystems giving back to FreeBSD etc.

If you don't want other developers to modify or rebrand your code, then DON'T release it as open source! Simple as that.

[Handoko]

Thank you all for the explanations. I don't fully understand how the licenses work, so this discussion is valuable to me.

... That is bad practice, and what CodeTyphon guys fixed. They didn't create some "wrapper" - they simply moved IDE specific registration code into a separate registration unit - thus allowing you to have separate Runtime and Design Time packages. Much better organized. It also means the Runtime package can be used on its own, without pulling in Lazarus IDE registration unit dependencies.

Hello Graeme. Is there any links or pages explaining how to write good and more organized controls? I'm a self-taught programmer and I do not follow any good coding standard, but I want to learn to be better.

[hnb]

No, it is called branding. Nothing bad with it.

Maybe my post was too strong. For me, credits for others is good practice. Good manners are needed .

[Bostjan]

No, it is called branding. Nothing bad with it.

Maybe my post was too strong. For me, credits for others is good practice. Good manners are needed .

Like it was said. Linux distros do it all the time, it's branding.
If you run ubuntu everywhere you look it is just ubuntu logos and trademarks no mention of debian, similary if you are running mint there is no mention of ubuntu, etc...

As long as all source code is freely avaliable I have no problems with this.