Discussion:
Embarcadero vs Lazarus/FPC (Oracle vs Google)
(too old to reply)
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-05-08 07:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

I'm following the trial between Oracle vs Google and wondered about
the following... Judge Alsup told the jury to assume API's are
copyrightable - something Alsup still has to determine later during
trial. Now if he does rule that API's are copyrightable, how will this
affect the Lazarus and Free Pascal projects? Both the latter projects
copy Embarcadero's API's verbatim.

http://www.osnews.com/story/25918/Google_infringed_Java_copyrights_but_we_don_t_know_if_that_s_illegal
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/05/jury-rules-google-violated-copyright-law-google-moves-for-mistrial.ars
--
Regards,
  - Graeme -

--
Hans-Peter Diettrich
2012-05-08 08:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Hi,
I'm following the trial between Oracle vs Google and wondered about
the following... Judge Alsup told the jury to assume API's are
copyrightable - something Alsup still has to determine later during
trial. Now if he does rule that API's are copyrightable, how will this
affect the Lazarus and Free Pascal projects? Both the latter projects
copy Embarcadero's API's verbatim.
US hosters may be disallowed to make such software available.
US users may be disallowed to import and use such software.

I don't think that these consequences really are wanted ;-)

IMO the difference between copying source files and copying contained
declarations should be respected. The EU applies copyright to source
files, but not to the ideas, interfaces etc. behind some software (no
software patents).

DoDi


--
Žilvinas Ledas
2012-05-08 08:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Hello all,

relevant recent news is that EU court ruled that APIs and programming
languages are not copyrightable:
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/05/02/229208/eu-court-rules-apis-programming-languages-not-copyrightable

So at least in EU it is totally legal.


Regards,
Žilvinas
Post by Hans-Peter Diettrich
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Hi,
I'm following the trial between Oracle vs Google and wondered about
the following... Judge Alsup told the jury to assume API's are
copyrightable - something Alsup still has to determine later during
trial. Now if he does rule that API's are copyrightable, how will this
affect the Lazarus and Free Pascal projects? Both the latter projects
copy Embarcadero's API's verbatim.
US hosters may be disallowed to make such software available.
US users may be disallowed to import and use such software.
I don't think that these consequences really are wanted ;-)
IMO the difference between copying source files and copying contained
declarations should be respected. The EU applies copyright to source
files, but not to the ideas, interfaces etc. behind some software (no
software patents).
DoDi
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-05-08 08:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Žilvinas Ledas
So at least in EU it is totally legal.
Thanks for the link, I'll read that article now.
--
Regards,
  - Graeme -

--
Santiago A.
2012-05-08 09:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Žilvinas Ledas
Hello all,
relevant recent news is that EU court ruled that APIs and programming
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/05/02/229208/eu-court-rules-apis-programming-languages-not-copyrightable
So at least in EU it is totally legal.
... so far.

There is a strong pressure on EU to sign ACTA.

In fact, many countries in EU have signed ACTA bilaterally

http://mashable.com/2012/01/27/22-eu-countries-ratify-acta-key-parliament-member-calls-it-a-charade/

It still must be ratified by EU parliament, but...

The game is, "We, Commission, will ask you, EU Parliament, to ratify
it. If you don't, we will ask you again in a few months. If you don't,
we will ask you again in a few months. If you don't, we will ask you
again in a few months. If you don't, we will ask you again in a few
months.....
--
Regards

Santiago A.
***@ciberpiula.net


--
tw
2012-05-08 10:32:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Žilvinas Ledas
Hello all,
relevant recent news is that EU court ruled that APIs and programming
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/05/02/229208/eu-court-rules-apis-programming-languages-not-copyrightable
So at least in EU it is totally legal.
if so, and SAS code "functionality" can't be protected by copyright,
what about functionality of GPL'ed code (analogously R-project) ? it
also can't be protected (if source code is visible) ?

best regards
tw

--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
2012-05-08 12:10:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santiago A.
Post by Žilvinas Ledas
So at least in EU it is totally legal.
... so far.
There is a strong pressure on EU to sign ACTA.
In fact, many countries in EU have signed ACTA bilaterally
http://mashable.com/2012/01/27/22-eu-countries-ratify-acta-key-parliament-member-calls-it-a-charade/
It still must be ratified by EU parliament, but...
Well, there is also a strong pressure not to sign ACTA. It was given
as a sure fact that Poland would sign Acta this february, but ....
then people started protesting in the streets non-stop. Even while it
was -20 there were large protests and the government eventually gave
up. They couldn't face their popularity falling and called off the
signing just 1 day before the date or something like that. Ever since
there was no more talk about it and pretty much no politician would
say he is for ACTA now. Something similar could happen everywhere in
Europe.
--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho

--
m***@wisa.be
2012-05-08 07:45:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Hi,
I'm following the trial between Oracle vs Google and wondered about
the following... Judge Alsup told the jury to assume API's are
copyrightable - something Alsup still has to determine later during
trial. Now if he does rule that API's are copyrightable, how will this
affect the Lazarus and Free Pascal projects? Both the latter projects
copy Embarcadero's API's verbatim.
Well, not verbatim. There are differences.

Now, if he so judges, that would mean the end of the wine, samba and many
other open or closed source projects.

I suspect that this would be taken to a higher court by the FSF and
other organisations as Redhat, Linux.org.

They would all have to close shop after such a ruling.

In each case, we are not US-based; a ruling by a US judge does not affect us.

At worst it would mean FPC/Lazarus cannot be used in the US.

Michael.

--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-05-08 08:09:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@wisa.be
Now, if he so judges, that would mean the end of the wine, samba and many
other open or closed source projects.
Indeed, it will have one hell of a knock-on effect.
Post by m***@wisa.be
In each case, we are not US-based; a ruling by a US judge does not affect
us. At worst it would mean FPC/Lazarus cannot be used in the US.
That's always good to know.
--
Regards,
  - Graeme -


_______________________________________________
fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net

--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
2012-05-08 08:15:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@wisa.be
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Hi,
I'm following the trial between Oracle vs Google and wondered about
the following... Judge Alsup told the jury to assume API's are
copyrightable - something Alsup still has to determine later during
trial. Now if he does rule that API's are copyrightable, how will this
affect the Lazarus and Free Pascal projects? Both the latter projects
copy Embarcadero's API's verbatim.
Before anything else, I want to make it clear that I am critical of
Google's business model, which amounts to "it's probably illegal, it
might be in the common good, it's definitely to our advantage, let's do
it". But I think a bit more clarity from Oracle as to what they're
trying to achieve would be in order: are they trying to protect their
intellectual property, or are they trying to force a precedent?
Post by m***@wisa.be
Well, not verbatim. There are differences.
Now, if he so judges, that would mean the end of the wine, samba and
many other open or closed source projects.
I suspect that this would be taken to a higher court by the FSF and
other organisations as Redhat, Linux.org.
They would all have to close shop after such a ruling.
Although I think that people would argue that the unix API was based on
work which has ended up in the public domain, and has been extended in
ways that are obvious to anybody "skilled in the art".

Superficially, Oracle can't wreck Linux since they sell an
implementation. However they also own Solaris, and since their high-end
kit works better with Solaris than with Linux my own feeling is that
they'd like more people to use it.
Post by m***@wisa.be
In each case, we are not US-based; a ruling by a US judge does not affect us.
At worst it would mean FPC/Lazarus cannot be used in the US.
In the UK, it could potentially mean extradition without trial: we've
got an extremely lopsided treaty which is now being implemented as the
law, despite the fact that the USA has not ratified it.

In any event, don't plan to go to Florida for your next vacation.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]

--
Sven Barth
2012-05-08 08:20:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Morgan Lloyd
Post by m***@wisa.be
Well, not verbatim. There are differences.
Now, if he so judges, that would mean the end of the wine, samba and
many other open or closed source projects.
I suspect that this would be taken to a higher court by the FSF and
other organisations as Redhat, Linux.org.
They would all have to close shop after such a ruling.
Although I think that people would argue that the unix API was based on
work which has ended up in the public domain, and has been extended in
ways that are obvious to anybody "skilled in the art".
Superficially, Oracle can't wreck Linux since they sell an
implementation. However they also own Solaris, and since their high-end
kit works better with Solaris than with Linux my own feeling is that
they'd like more people to use it.
It's not about Oracle wrecking everyone, but companies that originally
developed some API wrecking those that reimplemented it. Especially the
Wine or ReactOS projects are "good" candidates for this (as Samba and
Mono cooperate more or less with Microsoft I don't see that much
problems for them).

Regards,
Sven

--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
2012-05-08 08:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sven Barth
Post by Mark Morgan Lloyd
Superficially, Oracle can't wreck Linux since they sell an
implementation. However they also own Solaris, and since their high-end
kit works better with Solaris than with Linux my own feeling is that
they'd like more people to use it.
It's not about Oracle wrecking everyone, but companies that originally
developed some API wrecking those that reimplemented it. Especially the
Wine or ReactOS projects are "good" candidates for this (as Samba and
Mono cooperate more or less with Microsoft I don't see that much
problems for them).
But if Google fight all the way to the USA Supreme Court and lose, it
will constitute a precedent: whatever Oracle's intentions.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]

--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-05-08 08:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@wisa.be
At worst it would mean FPC/Lazarus cannot be used in the US.
Thinking about it further... I guess even if the judge rules that
API's are copyrightable in the US, Embarcadero would have a hard time
coming after the FPC project.... because the latest Delphi ships with
and uses FPC for its iOS (ARM) support. So in a way Embarcadero is OK
with FPC (excluding Lazarus).
--
Regards,
  - Graeme -


_______________________________________________
fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net

--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
2012-05-08 08:48:56 UTC
Permalink
Thinking about it further... I guess even if the judge rules thatAPI's are copyrightable in the US, Embarcadero would have a hard timecoming after the FPC project.... because the latest Delphi ships withand uses FPC for its iOS (ARM) support. So in a way Embarcadero is OKwith FPC (excluding Lazarus).
Definitely not a safe conclusion. Embarcadero could argue that they
owned the IP that FPC was implementing, and were using the FPC compiler
whilst at the same time preparing a legal attack.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]

--
Hans-Peter Diettrich
2012-05-08 09:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@wisa.be
Now, if he so judges, that would mean the end of the wine, samba and
many other open or closed source projects.
Why that?
Post by m***@wisa.be
I suspect that this would be taken to a higher court by the FSF and
other organisations as Redhat, Linux.org.
They would all have to close shop after such a ruling.
In each case, we are not US-based; a ruling by a US judge does not affect us.
Sic!
Post by m***@wisa.be
At worst it would mean FPC/Lazarus cannot be used in the US.
You remember the PGP case? When the use or export of software is
restricted, other countries can claim the same for their software. The
assumption, that terrorists are too stupid to write or let write good
software for them, is stupid again.

In the last c't magazine I found an side-cut on the German
"Bundestrojaner", a spy software developed for the secret service:

"Since the AV software is booted from a clean CD, and has full control
over the machine, there is no disk space where a rootkit or other
spyware could hide itself."

Millions of taxes, spent for the development of that software, are burnt
by an simple update of already existing software (Linux and AV). <grumble>

DoDi


--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
2012-05-08 09:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Peter Diettrich
In the last c't magazine I found an side-cut on the German
"Since the AV software is booted from a clean CD, and has full control
over the machine, there is no disk space where a rootkit or other
spyware could hide itself."
Never a safe assumption: a rootkit can hide itself in Flash, and in
particular can hide itself in the "hidden" System Management Mode BIOS
space (Phrack 65).
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]

--
Lukasz Sokol
2012-05-08 11:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Morgan Lloyd
Post by Hans-Peter Diettrich
In the last c't magazine I found an side-cut on the German
"Since the AV software is booted from a clean CD, and has full
control over the machine, there is no disk space where a rootkit or
other spyware could hide itself."
Never a safe assumption: a rootkit can hide itself in Flash, and in
particular can hide itself in the "hidden" System Management Mode
BIOS space (Phrack 65).
Hans grumbled on this in next line ;)

L.


--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
2012-05-10 11:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lukasz Sokol
Post by Mark Morgan Lloyd
Post by Hans-Peter Diettrich
In the last c't magazine I found an side-cut on the German
"Since the AV software is booted from a clean CD, and has full
control over the machine, there is no disk space where a rootkit or
other spyware could hide itself."
Never a safe assumption: a rootkit can hide itself in Flash, and in
particular can hide itself in the "hidden" System Management Mode
BIOS space (Phrack 65).
Hans grumbled on this in next line ;)
No, he grumbled that money had been spent writing something that could
be defeated by loading a different operating system. I'm pointing out
that there are at least two categories of malware (or state-sanctioned
spyware) which apply to any OS, since they are hidden at a lower level
(Flash or SMM BIOS).

It's very much comparable to Geohot's hack of the Sony Playstation: he
attacked the MMU before Sony's loader attempted to run, and was able to
extract compromising information.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]

--
Lukasz Sokol
2012-05-10 11:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Morgan Lloyd
Post by Lukasz Sokol
Post by Mark Morgan Lloyd
Post by Hans-Peter Diettrich
In the last c't magazine I found an side-cut on the German
"Bundestrojaner", a spy software developed for the secret
"Since the AV software is booted from a clean CD, and has full
control over the machine, there is no disk space where a
rootkit or other spyware could hide itself."
Never a safe assumption: a rootkit can hide itself in Flash, and
in particular can hide itself in the "hidden" System Management
Mode BIOS space (Phrack 65).
Hans grumbled on this in next line ;)
No, he grumbled that money had been spent writing something that
could be defeated by loading a different operating system.
Quoting Hans :

"Millions of taxes, spent for the development of that software, are burnt by an simple update of already existing software (Linux and AV). <grumble> "

which I gather is that he /is/ grumbling about /the/ same assumption
you deemed /not safe/...
Post by Mark Morgan Lloyd
I'm
pointing out that there are at least two categories of malware (or
state-sanctioned spyware) which apply to any OS, since they are
hidden at a lower level (Flash or SMM BIOS).
... which you are going into more detail here...
Post by Mark Morgan Lloyd
he attacked the MMU before Sony's loader attempted to run, and was
able to extract compromising information.
... and here :)

To recap, I had an impression you were rebutting what Hans wrote where
in reality you both wrote about the same thing :)

(this is getting too off topic, EOT from me ;)
L.


--
Reinier Olislagers
2012-05-08 07:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Hi,
I'm following the trial between Oracle vs Google and wondered about
the following... Judge Alsup told the jury to assume API's are
copyrightable - something Alsup still has to determine later during
trial. Now if he does rule that API's are copyrightable, how will this
affect the Lazarus and Free Pascal projects? Both the latter projects
copy Embarcadero's API's verbatim.
http://www.osnews.com/story/25918/Google_infringed_Java_copyrights_but_we_don_t_know_if_that_s_illegal
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/05/jury-rules-google-violated-copyright-law-google-moves-for-mistrial.ars
On the other hand, apparently EU judges ruled that programming languages
are NOT copyrightable... the extract of the ruling seems to indicate (to
me) that that specifically includes APIs:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/eu-court-rules-programming-languages-not-copyrightable/76076

I think a lot more projects will have problems if APIs are deemed
copyrightable and doubt any sane person would rule that... but we are
talking about the legal system... ;)

Suppose it's wait and see...

--
Reinier Olislagers
2012-06-01 16:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reinier Olislagers
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Hi,
I'm following the trial between Oracle vs Google and wondered about
the following... Judge Alsup told the jury to assume API's are
copyrightable - something Alsup still has to determine later during
trial. Now if he does rule that API's are copyrightable, how will this
affect the Lazarus and Free Pascal projects? Both the latter projects
copy Embarcadero's API's verbatim.
http://www.osnews.com/story/25918/Google_infringed_Java_copyrights_but_we_don_t_know_if_that_s_illegal
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/05/jury-rules-google-violated-copyright-law-google-moves-for-mistrial.ars
On the other hand, apparently EU judges ruled that programming languages
are NOT copyrightable... the extract of the ruling seems to indicate (to
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/eu-court-rules-programming-languages-not-copyrightable/76076
I think a lot more projects will have problems if APIs are deemed
copyrightable and doubt any sane person would rule that... but we are
talking about the legal system... ;)
Suppose it's wait and see...
And yes:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/31/no_copyright_java_api/
apparently, the judge ruled the APIs in question can't be copyrighted.
From the ruling: "So long as the specific code used to implement a
method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his
or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification
of any methods used in the Java API"
"It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are
identical. Under the rules of Java, they must be identical to declare a
method specifying the same functionality — even when the implementation
is different. When there is only one way to express an idea or function,
then everyone is free to do so and no one can monopolize that expression."

More quotes from the judgement as well as the entire verdict, I think:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120531/15383819155/judge-delivers-thorough-complete-smackdown-oracles-copyright-claims.shtml
... where the judge also says the structure/hierarchy
(java.package.Class.method) of the API is a bit creative but also a
command structure, a symbol or method of operation and therefore not
copyrightable.

Glad the judgement came down on the side of sanity and together with the
earlier European case, at least some sense prevails...

Reinier

--

Andrew Brunner
2012-05-08 12:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Folllow the logic. This trial is about theft. It's not about the API.
Having API files that include verbatim code issued by Oracle are issued
under a pretense. That pretense is what binds users of Java code to
the licencing of the API by Oracle.

Oracle is telling google that that it is UNACCEPTABLE for google to take
creative ownership over Java. This problem goes far beyond copying of some
API. Google as made and Oracle product - and Oracle is not happy.

FPC and it's core design have been around prior to Embarcadero's purchase
of Delphi from Inprise. At the point of purchase Embarcadero was
responsible for objecting to FPC
and they could have avoided said purchase.

Both FPC and Lazarus predate Embarcadero's Delphi. So any verbatim code
copying would have to be relatively recent. Since Lazarus is cross
platform, only Windows based widgets would be the source of ANY potential
threat to ligation. So Lazarus worst case scenero is that only PART of the
project could EVER be called into question.

If they ever had a problem with say the Windows widgets I suspect the
community at large would defend this project tooth and nail and a suit
against Lazarus or FPC would probably cost them BIGTIME in PR points.

Recent versions of Delphi come with some parts FPC or Lazarus, this fact
alone says signals their acceptance of FPC and Lazarus.

IMO, it is Embarcadero that would be worred about the Free software
foundation come after them for the use of code by Lazarus or FPC.

Lastly, API stands for Application Programming Interface. So in order to
Interface with an API, both sides of the code MUST be identical. While
this conversation started with API, I'm telling you this has nothing to do
Lazarus or FPC.



On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Hi,
I'm following the trial between Oracle vs Google and wondered about
the following... Judge Alsup told the jury to assume API's are
copyrightable - something Alsup still has to determine later during
trial. Now if he does rule that API's are copyrightable, how will this
affect the Lazarus and Free Pascal projects? Both the latter projects
copy Embarcadero's API's verbatim.
Reinier Olislagers
2012-05-08 12:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Brunner
Folllow the logic. This trial is about theft. It's not about the API.
Having API files that include verbatim code issued by Oracle are issued
under a pretense. That pretense is what binds users of Java code to
the licencing of the API by Oracle.
Oracle is telling google that that it is UNACCEPTABLE for google to take
creative ownership over Java. This problem goes far beyond copying of
some API. Google as made and Oracle product - and Oracle is not happy.
FPC and it's core design have been around prior
to Embarcadero's purchase of Delphi from Inprise. At the point of
purchase Embarcadero was responsible for objecting to FPC
and they could have avoided said purchase.
Both FPC and Lazarus predate Embarcadero's Delphi. So any verbatim code
copying would have to be relatively recent. Since Lazarus is cross
platform, only Windows based widgets would be the source of ANY
potential threat to ligation. So Lazarus worst case scenero is that
only PART of the project could EVER be called into question.
If they ever had a problem with say the Windows widgets I suspect the
community at large would defend this project tooth and nail and a suit
against Lazarus or FPC would probably cost them BIGTIME in PR points.
Recent versions of Delphi come with some parts FPC or Lazarus, this fact
alone says signals their acceptance of FPC and Lazarus.
IMO, it is Embarcadero that would be worred about the Free software
foundation come after them for the use of code by Lazarus or FPC.
I don't agree with many of your standpoints/reasoning, but us in this
list arguing about these things won't help much I think... let's first
see what the judge over there says.

Also, as others have said, I think FPC/Lazarus wouldn't be the only ones
with a sudden problem; ReactOS, Samba, Wine, Ghostscript, perhaps those
Windows wireless card Linux driver writers (if you understand what I
mean) may all be in the same boat.
Post by Andrew Brunner
Lastly, API stands for Application Programming Interface. So in order
to Interface with an API, both sides of the code MUST be identical.
That's certainly true... although variable names could differ I suppose ;)

--
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-05-08 12:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Brunner
Oracle is telling google that that it is UNACCEPTABLE for google to take
creative ownership over Java.  This problem goes far beyond copying of some
API.  Google as made and Oracle product - and Oracle is not happy.
This applies exactly to FPC and Lazarus as far as I can see.
Borland/Embarcadero created a product (eg: like Sun/Oracle did with
Java), then came the community and made a new competing product -
based on the API of Borland/Embarcadero (like Google did).
Post by Andrew Brunner
Recent versions of Delphi come with some parts FPC or Lazarus, this fact
alone says signals their acceptance of FPC and Lazarus.
I may be wrong, but as far as I know Delphi XE2 only uses FPC for
compiling ARM/iOS executables. Delphi XE2 doesn't use anything of
Lazarus.
Post by Andrew Brunner
Lastly, API stands for Application Programming Interface.  So in order to
Interface with an API, both sides of the code MUST be identical.
FPC and Lazarus are not interfacing with Delphi, they are cloning
Delphi functionality and API [with some minor tweaks of there own],
and making a competing product. As far as I can see, this is exactly
what Google did with Java - and Oracle is not happy with this. In a
similar situation Microsoft tried this before [with Java] and Sun won
the case there.


At the moment anyway, it seems that if you are a developer in Europe,
you are still safe to use FPC and Lazarus (as Žilvinas quoted link
shows). But for anybody else, this is a bit worrisome. :-( I guess we
will just have to wait and see what the judge decides.
--
Regards,
  - Graeme -

--
Andrew Brunner
2012-05-08 12:52:41 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
FPC and Lazarus are not interfacing with Delphi, they are cloning
Delphi functionality and API [with some minor tweaks of there own],
and making a competing product. As far as I can see, this is exactly
what Google did with Java - and Oracle is not happy with this. In a
similar situation Microsoft tried this before [with Java] and Sun won
the case there.
I've never ran a check to see what is different in units. Delphi is
Windows ONLY. And replication or overlap would only effect windows based
units. Borland Delphi does not exist. Inprise Delphi does not exist.
Embarcadero is new. The fact remains that Lazarus/FPC predate
Embarcadero's purchase of Delphi. Therefore it was
their responsibility to do execute DUE DILIGENCE prior to their purchase.
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
shows). But for anybody else, this is a bit worrisome. :-( I guess we
will just have to wait and see what the judge decides.
Please. I wouldn't spend too much time waiting. The reason Embarcadero
was rescued from the chopping block was their owner loves the language.
Embarcadero is not going to make enemies. I'm sure if they have a
legitimate complaint something will be done. Lazarus/FPC far
more ubiquitous than Delphi. And without Lazarus. Delphi has no future.
As sad as that sounds.

Killing or slowing this project would mean certain death for pascal (as a
whole) as an adopted language. And FPC/Lazarus is the only reason why
developers consider pacal as a viable option. And some
businesses prefer a commercial product they can pay for Delphi. But
Delphi will never again be the product they once were.
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-05-08 13:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Brunner
I've never ran a check to see what is different in units.
I'm not referring to implementation (source code) - only the API and
functionality.
Post by Andrew Brunner
 Delphi is Windows ONLY.
Not any more. :) As of Delphi XE2 it officially supports Windows, Mac
OS X and iOS. There seems to be talks about Linux too.
Post by Andrew Brunner
is new.  The fact remains that Lazarus/FPC predate Embarcadero's purchase of
Delphi.  Therefore it was their responsibility to do execute
DUE DILIGENCE prior to their purchase.
You assumption seems wrong. Oracle bought Sun (which included the Java
product) AFTER Android was created/released by Google. That still
didn't stop Oracle from taking Google to court. As far as I understand
it, if you bought a company, you get the company, its products (it's
intellectual property) and the history of those products - unless
explicitly specified otherwise.
Post by Andrew Brunner
Please.  I wouldn't spend too much time waiting.  The reason Embarcadero was
rescued from the chopping block was their owner loves the language.
 Embarcadero is not going to make enemies.
Going by the history of many projects and companies - love has NO say
in business. It's all about the money!
Post by Andrew Brunner
And without Lazarus. Delphi has no future.
That's wishful thinking at best.
--
Regards,
  - Graeme -

--
Andrew Brunner
2012-05-08 13:21:51 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
You assumption seems wrong. Oracle bought Sun (which included the Java
product) AFTER Android was created/released by Google. That still
didn't stop Oracle from taking Google to court. As far as I understand
it, if you bought a company, you get the company, its products (it's
intellectual property) and the history of those products - unless
explicitly specified otherwise.
Article April 2009 http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/press/018363
Details specifically from Oracle what i've been trying to tell you.
Graeme Geldenhuys
2012-05-08 13:33:05 UTC
Permalink
Article April 2009  http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/press/018363
Details specifically from Oracle what i've been trying to tell you.
Google purchased the initial developer of the software, Android Inc.,
in 2005. Then Google later unveiled the Android distribution in 2007.
Both events pre-date the Oracle purchase of Sun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29
--
Regards,
  - Graeme -

--
Andrew Brunner
2012-05-08 14:01:31 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys
Post by Graeme Geldenhuys
Google purchased the initial developer of the software, Android Inc.,
in 2005. Then Google later unveiled the Android distribution in 2007.
Both events pre-date the Oracle purchase of Sun.
The only thing left I can say is wait until judgement, then draw potential
parallels. Java runs on all platforms. Lazarus/FPC runs on all platforms.
Delphi does / did not. They can't retro-actively go back and re-invent
what we all know was Delphi and go after the Lazarus project. Lazarus will
have major differences of that I'm sure. Bare windows API calls after that
- are point of fact - Fair Use and not protected by US Copyright law.
Andrew Brunner
2012-05-08 12:59:55 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys
Post by Andrew Brunner
Oracle is telling google that that it is UNACCEPTABLE for google to take
creative ownership over Java. This problem goes far beyond copying of
some
Post by Andrew Brunner
API. Google as made and Oracle product - and Oracle is not happy.
This does not apply here. Orcale and google are widely adopted and highly
funded. I repeat Delphi has changed ownership 3 times SINCE FPC and
or Lazarus and came to be. Google recently stole Java from Oracle. Their
claim is with much merit. google has been stealing IP left and right.
They have to be stopped.

Delphi, Lazarus, FPC must learn to co-exist. This project must not fail.
All parties in FPC/Lazarus and Delphi must accept the present market as
fighting each-other would certainly mean the demise of all three projects.
And Lazarus/FPC serves the greatest good, and therefore must be defended.
m***@wisa.be
2012-05-08 13:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Brunner
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys
Post by Andrew Brunner
Oracle is telling google that that it is UNACCEPTABLE for google to take
creative ownership over Java. This problem goes far beyond copying of
some
Post by Andrew Brunner
API. Google as made and Oracle product - and Oracle is not happy.
This does not apply here. Orcale and google are widely adopted and highly
funded. I repeat Delphi has changed ownership 3 times SINCE FPC and
or Lazarus and came to be. Google recently stole Java from Oracle. Their
claim is with much merit. google has been stealing IP left and right.
They have to be stopped.
Stealing IP ? That depends on your point of view.

My view is that IP itself is theft. The concept of IP is fundamentally flawed.

Knowledge should be free for all, and not 'owned' by someone for mere monetary gain.

IP is much like the church and its universal truths in the middle ages.
I thought we got rid of those shackles, now we get other ones.
Instead of church, we have large corporations.

If someone found a cure for all kinds of cancer, and kept it for himself
using the IP umbrella, I'd label him a criminal against humankind and send
him to trial in The Hague.

Michael.

--
Andrew Brunner
2012-05-08 13:29:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@wisa.be
Stealing IP ? That depends on your point of view.
Ownership is always a perspective issue. We all just try to carve out
ownership. Patents offer a way to convert work product into other things.
Post by m***@wisa.be
My view is that IP itself is theft. The concept of IP is fundamentally flawed.
Knowledge should be free for all, and not 'owned' by someone for mere monetary gain.
I agree. But the way in which problems are solved and solutions are
brought to market should be somewhat sacred.
Post by m***@wisa.be
IP is much like the church and its universal truths in the middle ages. I
thought we got rid of those shackles, now we get other ones. Instead of
church, we have large corporations.
I agree.
Post by m***@wisa.be
If someone found a cure for all kinds of cancer, and kept it for himself
using the IP umbrella, I'd label him a criminal against humankind and send
him to trial in The Hague.
Not if he or she was a big pharma employee. They would be given a gold
watch and a few high fives. ;-)
Michael Schnell
2012-05-09 07:39:42 UTC
Permalink
They would be given a gold watch and a few high fives. ;-)
He then will sell the watch, buy shares of food companies and get
extremely rich regarding the need of starving masses.

-Michael

--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
2012-05-09 09:01:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Schnell
They would be given a gold watch and a few high fives. ;-)
He then will sell the watch, buy shares of food companies and get
extremely rich regarding the need of starving masses.
Since when have food companies sold to the starving masses?

This is getting off-topic. Consensus appears to be that in Europe FPC's
safe, possibly less so in the USA.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]

--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
2012-05-08 14:30:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@wisa.be
IP is much like the church and its universal truths in the middle ages. I
thought we got rid of those shackles, now we get other ones. Instead of
church, we have large corporations.
-1 please leave Christianism out of your rant.

If it wasn't for the Christian-based Solidarity movement Poland would
still be a communist dictatorship ala-China. Solidarity even had
religious services in their protests.

See: Loading Image...
Also recommend watching the film "The man of iron / Człowiek z żelaza"


So much for saying that we are the opressors.
--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho

--
m***@wisa.be
2012-05-08 14:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
Post by m***@wisa.be
IP is much like the church and its universal truths in the middle ages. I
thought we got rid of those shackles, now we get other ones. Instead of
church, we have large corporations.
-1 please leave Christianism out of your rant.
I wrote church, not christianism. That's a world of difference.

I have no problems with individual christians and their belief.

Michael.

--
Andrew Brunner
2012-05-08 14:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@wisa.be
I wrote church, not christianism. That's a world of difference.
I have no problems with individual christians and their belief.
That's perception at work. When I read that I had understood it as what
Michael has just asserted :-)
Dimitri Smits
2012-05-08 16:29:38 UTC
Permalink
----- Oorspronkelijk e-mail -----
Post by Andrew Brunner
FPC and it's core design have been around prior to Embarcadero's
purchase of Delphi from Inprise. At the point of purchase
Embarcadero was responsible for objecting to FPC
and they could have avoided said purchase.
Andrew,

that same argument could be made for Oracle's purchase of Sun (and therefore java IP) with regard to Google and Android's Dalvik.

Java was being open sourced by Sun a few years prior to the takeover. Android was around, with Dalvik compiler and language similar to java, prior to the purchase.

what I'm worried more about is that there are open implementations of the java specification (read: jvm) around. OK, they strive to be api-compliant and implement all the interfaces of the entire JRE libraries and do not tend to cherry-pick features/classes.

If Oracle wins, then it might be the end of java and java developments alltogether. This being a pascal-oriented mailinglist, I probably should hold my tongue :-), but I would find that sad. (both as a professional and hobby developer)

Oracle doesn't have the backing of a java-community anymore since they purchased Sun and started dismantling the community processes (JCP). I doubt this move will win them souls.

On the other hand, with the demise of .net and java in a 2 year timeframe, maybe OP skills wouldn't look so bad after all :-)

(yes, I know, with 10+ years of Delphi experience I still have to explain on every job/networking session that pascal isn't dead - so say we all)

mvg,
Dimitri Smits
Hans-Peter Diettrich
2012-05-08 21:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dimitri Smits
what I'm worried more about is that there are open implementations of
the java specification (read: jvm) around. OK, they strive to be
api-compliant and implement all the interfaces of the entire JRE
libraries and do not tend to cherry-pick features/classes.
There exist more derived implementations, like native compilers from
Java into machine code. Such certified compilers are available for
almost all microcontrollers, where they allow to replace any
microcontroller by a different one, while maintaining bit-identical
operation of existing code.

DoDi


--
Hans-Peter Diettrich
2012-05-08 19:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Brunner
FPC and it's core design have been around prior
to Embarcadero's purchase of Delphi from Inprise. At the point of
purchase Embarcadero was responsible for objecting to FPC
and they could have avoided said purchase.
Both FPC and Lazarus predate Embarcadero's Delphi. So any verbatim code
copying would have to be relatively recent. Since Lazarus is cross
platform, only Windows based widgets would be the source of ANY
potential threat to ligation. So Lazarus worst case scenero is that
only PART of the project could EVER be called into question.
This procedure may apply to US law (copyright), but not to EU law
(author's right, droit d'auteur).

DoDi


--
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...