On Jan 16, 2008 2:42 PM, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The suspect routines are mostly in the classes unit.
> In the component streaming system, to be exact. This code is of course
> available in the GPL-ed CLX... Note also that the CLX is under some kind
> of dual license: GPL o
On 17 Jan 2008, at 12:18, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Thursday 17 January 2008 11:54, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 17 Jan 2008, at 08:02, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
But given it is GPL your customer may decide to redistribute the
source,
as you gave him explicit permission with the GPL to do so. It would
On Thursday 17 January 2008 11:54, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> On 17 Jan 2008, at 08:02, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> > On Wednesday 16 January 2008 17:49, Roberto Padovani wrote:
> >> Given that I don't have Delphi, suppose that company X ask me to
> >> make a software for them. I might give them the softwar
On 17 Jan 2008, at 08:02, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 17:49, Roberto Padovani wrote:
Given that I don't have Delphi, suppose that company X ask me to make
a software for them. I might give them the software, with full source
code and a GPL licence note every here and t
On Wednesday 16 January 2008 17:49, Roberto Padovani wrote:
> Given that I don't have Delphi, suppose that company X ask me to make
> a software for them. I might give them the software, with full source
> code and a GPL licence note every here and there, and ask money for
> the _design_ of the so
On Jan 16, 2008 9:42 PM, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regardless of this, we do not wish to be suspected of using Borland's
> code, and therefor decided to play it safe and recode the routines
> anyway. I cannot stress this enough.
Are the recoded routines in 2.2.1?
Any vague
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, John Stoneham wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2008 7:18 AM, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not too much implication, for you, normally:
> >
> > 1. If you have a licensed copy of Delphi, you can ignore it:
> >you are allowed to use this source code.
> >
> >(We
John Stoneham schrieb:
>
> Here's an interesting question: Is any of the code at issue also in
> CLX?
Yes. To my knowledge all affected code is GPLed. However the FPC RTL is
modified LGPL which is GPL incompatible in this regard (you might not
change GPL licenses into LPGL ones).
___
On Jan 16, 2008 7:18 AM, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not too much implication, for you, normally:
>
> 1. If you have a licensed copy of Delphi, you can ignore it:
>you are allowed to use this source code.
>
>(We do not have the right to distribute it, but that is our pr
Thanks a lot!
you can't find a lawyer anywhere when you need it! :-) I'm joking, of course...
Given that I don't have Delphi, suppose that company X ask me to make
a software for them. I might give them the software, with full source
code and a GPL licence note every here and there, and ask money
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Roberto Padovani wrote:
> I've been following this topic from the beginning and I took the time
> to read the (questionable) blog from the ex-CG developer.
>
> I'm interested in it because aside my personal enjoyment, I started
> using freepascal+lazarus where I work in ord
I've been following this topic from the beginning and I took the time
to read the (questionable) blog from the ex-CG developer.
I'm interested in it because aside my personal enjoyment, I started
using freepascal+lazarus where I work in order to quickly solve some
needs like data analysis, algorit
On 16/01/2008, Tiziano De Togni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Could you please tell me if there is a real chance that CodeGear asks
> money for a concrete copyright violation to someone of the FPC or
> Lazarus developers?
FPC developers approached them (CodeGear) and took it on ourselves to
solve
On Jan 16, 2008 3:42 AM, Tiziano De Togni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could you please tell me if there is a real chance that CodeGear asks
> money for a concrete copyright violation to someone of the FPC or
> Lazarus developers?
>
> And in this case, how this claim could be performed?
Well, one
John Stoneham ha scritto:
apparent that he came to his conclusions as to the copyright issue at
the beginning of last year while still at CodeGear. I think it's
interesting that he never raised those issues then. It is also clear
that he has no clue about copyright law. It seems he believes that
> >yet. Until they do, I'm afraid this issue won't go away anytime soon.
>
> Please forgive my ignorance, but what is LCL?
The visual classes libray of Lazarus.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mail
Judging from the posts in this thread, it does seem that the FPC team
found some code after their review that needed fixing, and I'm glad
that's mostly been finished. However, it does concern me that the LCL
team hasn't performed the same kind of in-house analysis on their code
yet. Until they d
On Jan 15, 2008 6:16 AM, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The initial accusations were published on a Blog of some former
> Borland employee or afficionado. He contacted codegear, apparently,
> and then a codegear official (Alan Bauer) contacted some of the
> FPC team members by pri
On 15 Jan 2008, at 14:05, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On 15/01/2008, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-- 8< --
thanks for your explanation, i was curious what the progress on this
was. are there similar infringements in the lcl that needs to be
replaced, or has this not been revi
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Henry Vermaak wrote:
> On 15/01/2008, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -- 8< --
> > As far as I can judge:
> > They count on us to play things fair, and let us handle it to our
> > own judgement for the moment, but said that if we undertook no
> > action, the
On 15/01/2008, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-- 8< --
> As far as I can judge:
> They count on us to play things fair, and let us handle it to our
> own judgement for the moment, but said that if we undertook no
> action, they would take the necessary steps to protect their IP.
> W
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, John Stoneham wrote:
> Sorry if I'm a little late to this discussion. I just wanted to let
> you know that I am an attorney and have handled copyright infringement
> cases in the US (most recently the SONY vs. Crain music piracy case).
> As a hobby programmer and FPC/Lazarus
Sorry if I'm a little late to this discussion. I just wanted to let
you know that I am an attorney and have handled copyright infringement
cases in the US (most recently the SONY vs. Crain music piracy case).
As a hobby programmer and FPC/Lazarus enthusiast, I would be more than
happy to review, in
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008, Chris Kirkpatrick wrote:
>
>
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> >
> > So this is one area where you, our users, can make a big difference and help
> > us
> > in preventing this from happening in the future, as well as with notifying
> > us as
> > soon as possible
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> > Michael.
> >
> >
> >
> On browsing through the code of
> $FPCdir/packages/fcl-db/src/dbase/dbf.pas I came across the following
> (line 20-22)
>
> // If you got a compilation error here or asking for dsgnintf.pas, then
> just add
> // this file in your project
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Hello,
So this is one area where you, our users, can make a big difference and help us
in preventing this from happening in the future, as well as with notifying us as
soon as possible when it does happen (or when you know it happened in the past).
Most importantly:
Hello,
The FPC team has been recently made aware that a number of routines in the
Classes unit are apparently based on code originally from Borland/CodeGear.
After someone found a tool to automatically compare source code bodies to look
for structural similarities, we improved its support for Obj
27 matches
Mail list logo
