Lazarus Vs Codetyphon

[superc]

Hello,

I'd like to know why you chose to use Lazarus instead of codetyphon... Basically codetyphon is a fork of lazarus where we tried to break the compatibility between the two environments, but does this make sense to you?

Thanks in advance.

[Handoko]

I tried Code Typhon and I really liked it. They really added many features I would like to have them in Lazarus. I don't need to mention what they are, you can download and try and you will know. But I choose Lazarus.

I found Code Typhon when there were discussions about their license issue. I wasn't good about how software license work so I thought I should not use Code Typhon. Not sure but I heard they have fix the license issue.

Lazarus has LAMW and OPM, they don't. A big yes for me to keep using Lazarus.

Lazarus/FPC official forum has a lot of activities, skilled and professional users. I really learned a lot of things simply reading the posts here. In Code Typhon forum, people there are very polite but they will ban users they dislike. I am not a fan of debate but I know oppositions and willing to hear what the others say often is a good thing.

Code Typhon installation file was huge, I didn't have good internet connection speed. That took me hours for download.

They do not have bug tracker, detailed release notes and version history. Those can be useful for some issues I may have when my code does not work as what I think it should be.

(Almost) all the things Code Typhon can do, I can do it in Lazarus. Docker interface, cross compiling, installing third party components, I have no problem doing those things in Lazarus.

[Warfley]

CodeTyphon is a parasitic project. It is a fork of Lazarus, where they take lazarus and repackage it with their own software, components and services. But their own work is licensed under their custom license, which contains the following:

THE SOFTWARE MAY NOT BE SOLD, TRANSFERRED, OR FURTHER DISTRIBUTED
WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM PILOTLOGIC.

And later:

You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Software
outside Your organization provided that: 1) You receive
no consideration; and, 2) you do not bundle or combine the Software
with another offering (e.g., software, hardware, or service).

So they prohibit the exact same thing as they did with Lazarus. They leech of other peoples work while not providing any of their work to the projects they take from, thats why I call it parasitic.
It could be the best piece of software in the world, but I would not want to support any such behavior, so I will not use it, and highly advise anyone from using it.

[marcov]

I'd like to know why you chose to use Lazarus instead of codetyphon...

Codetyphon project's practices and accountability are doubtful. Both from an legal/copyright status, but also an inability to simply monitor what happens within the project. It is a mere user community governed by an dictator with an iron hand

That is also the reason why it is unknown how much of a fork codetyphon really is (iow how much it still syncs with Lazarus).  I do notice recent progress wrt fpdebug being annotated in the most recent codetyphon release manifest, so some syncing is definitely going on.

I can install my own packages, so the benefits of codetyphon are not that interesting to me, and I fail to see the attraction

[superc]

I used Codetyphon years ago and for me, the power of CT was the ability to compile bintools for different environments: I compiled from Linux for 64-bit windows. Another feature is that it had a lot of components already installed.
However, lazarus today has tools like OPM and FPCupDeluxe ...

[Thaddy]

the ability to compile bintools for different environments: I compiled from Linux for 64-bit windows. Another feature is that it had a lot of components already installed.

1. could always do that for any platform officially supported. Simply needs the programmer to do something her/himself. No rocket science involved.
2. too many components in the same IDE is a BAD thing, not a good thing.
3. see Marco's post above: there are legal issues, BIG legal issues. That alone is reason to leave it alone.
4. besides: what is claimed is not performed in many cases. (Mainly X-platform issues without proper documentation!)

Anyway: use the official builds and you are fine. I am afraid I do not even like the inclusion of the pl_XXX stuff in OPM. Half of those compile from their original sourcecode, if not all, so 5. False claims. (@Avra take note, I will vote for them to be removed)

This not a flame against it, but those people should have their issues in order. That is important in the open source community. Once they really solve all of that, CT is a fine option, but - still - not now: removing original author copyright and notes is one, that is theft.

[marcov]

I used Codetyphon years ago and for me, the power of CT was the ability to compile bintools for different environments: I compiled from Linux for 64-bit windows.

I crosscompiled a complete FPC and QT Lazarus to OS X powerpc in 2005.  A bit more might work out of the box on codetyphon, but to my knowledge they have nothing that works substantially principles than Lazarus.

[superc]

removing original author copyright and notes is one, that is theft.

I would say this is serious

[Thaddy]

I crosscompiled a complete FPC and QT Lazarus to OS X powerpc in 2005.  A bit more might work out of the box on codetyphon, but to my knowledge they have nothing that works substantially principles than Lazarus.

It offers basically nothing. Only a very little bit of convenience. And putting people on the wrong track.
But old hands like you and me - and multi -lingual - have an advantage over many.

[Thaddy]

I would say this is serious

Yes, it is. But alas it is also true... Not only in the past, but to the current day, like today...

[avra]

CT had usable embedded form designer first, then Lazarus caught up.
CT had cross compilation easy setup first, now we have fpcupdeluxe.
CT had lots of Delphi components not available for Lazarus, now we have ct4laz and OPM.

I stopped using CT after PilotLogic decided to break compatibility with Lazarus. I even made ct2laz to solve that problem and keep a choice to change IDE whenever I want, but for quite some time I find my self using ct2laz as a one way conversion tool.

Big issue was also that PilotLogic decided to use trunks which few times had impact on my development and I had to jump from version to version. They also decided to forbid downloads of anything other then last 3 releases, and explicitely said in the forum that putting old versions for a public download on your own would be a license violation. That was too much for me.

There used to be a lot of license issues with CT, but to be honest the last thing I remember was that Juha made a detailed research on CT license issues and found very little to complain. Very little is still not zero, but it was not that big as it was initially. However, for any bussiness that may be too much of a risk. Better safe then sorry.

PilotLogic is good at grabbing from others, but pretty bad at sharing. They forked embedded form designer and improved it quite a bit, but when GetMem wanted to incorporate their changes back (which license explicitely allows), they threathened with legal actions so it was decided to give up on ther improvements.

For the same reason I was banned from their forum after releasing ct4laz. That's fine with me. I do not understand reasoning behind the ban, but I do not have a problem with that. They can do whatever they want on their private forum.

So after having a lot of experience with CT, I do advise against it for quite some time. Lazarus has improved so much, that there is no more real benefit in using CT over it.

I am afraid I do not even like the inclusion of the pl_XXX stuff in OPM. Half of those compile from their original sourcecode, if not all, so 5. False claims. (@Avra take note, I will vote for them to be removed)

I do not have a problem with removal from OPM if others support your vote. However, I keep in ct4laz only components that could not be found elsewhere (the moment they appear to be available for Lazarus I kick them out of ct4laz), and keep only those that clearly have no license issues. So if you have anything to report, please give me a pointer that I can inspect and fix if needed.

[marcov]

There used to be a lot of license issues with CT, but to be honest the last thing I remember was that Juha made a detailed research on CT license issues and found very little to complain. Very little is still not zero, but it was not that big as it was initially. However, for any bussiness that may be too much of a risk. Better safe then sorry.

This is not true. The whole KSDEV stuff was never definitely settled, but the stripping/replacing of copyright notices in sources has been confirmed several times.

[Thaddy]

And really serious.
Let's not get the umpiest flame. ( I am not flaming)
Just ask for correction.
The code is good.
It just does not meet any standard regarding to honesty. 
None. Stolen intellectual property rights. Period.

Avra, you know my thoughts for many years. Solve the problem. Your contributions are really appreciated, but you have no clue about legal.

 

[avra]

There used to be a lot of license issues with CT, but to be honest the last thing I remember was that Juha made a detailed research on CT license issues and found very little to complain. Very little is still not zero, but it was not that big as it was initially. However, for any bussiness that may be too much of a risk. Better safe then sorry.

This is not true. The whole KSDEV stuff was never definitely settled, but the stripping/replacing of copyright notices in sources has been confirmed several times.

I have found a reference to original claims thread:
https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,34602.msg228986.html#msg228986

I did not check claims by myself, so I can not comment if those are true or not (although I thought it was). But I do remember CT had some KSDEV code, with KSDEV violating some license on their own (causing problems to Delphi as well: https://www.delphitools.info/2011/09/05/glscene-source-code-used-in-firemonkey/). That alone was ugly enough to stay away from CT.

Avra, you know my thoughts for many years. Solve the problem.

How? What do you suggest? If I thought that some component in ct4laz had issues I would have already kicked it out immediatelly. Please provide a specific pointer to an issue so that I can fix it. If someone shows me a proof, then I will be the first to kick out the problematic part, or even kill the whole ct4laz in case of some big issue. I really do not have a problem with that. Meantime, I would still like to hear what component can be compiled from original sources so that I can kick out those from ct4laz and update my public list at https://bitbucket.org/avra/ct4laz/src/master/pl_packages_list.xls.

I had several open calls to report any license issues so that I can kick out such components:
https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,39508.msg382956.html#msg382956
https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,39508.msg318159.html#msg318159

Your contributions are really appreciated, but you have no clue about legal.

Might be true, I am not a lawyer. 

This thread is probably going to be locked soon, so any found issues can be reported to PM or at bitbucket repo.

[Thaddy]

None. Stolen intellectual property rights. Period.

This is my own quote.
And plz remove all my patches. All of them. (26)
Unless the copyright issues are solved.
( For other readers: a thief is a thief, quite simple, this is not Avra as a thief as such , of course not! )