Yes, sadly. It also occurred to other projects in the past, including some code that was donated to them then not maintained (even when the original contributor forwarded them fixes, f.i. with GIF & PNG support, DUnit, Indy...).
While legally speaking no notice was ever required (just like in Henri Gourvest case), that's just bad manners IMHO to go at it like punks and without coordinating with the involved project maintainers.
Bundling units directly f.i. means they're "clamping down" on the namespace, especially when those units are involved in the core BPLs. And with their policy of not providing updates (or so few...) to released software, they keep the old bugs alive long after they have been fixed (which in several case was before the release of the Delphi version that bundled the units).
Phishing often relies on misspelled terms, so if the phishing filter is a bit aggressive, it'll think that "progdigy" is "prodigy" misspelled, and thus that it's a phishing attempt. Make the user think he's connecting to "prodigy" while he's ending up on "progdigy".
If it is GPL/MPL or similar, that is not so much a problem for EMBT as it is a problem for those creating software using those units. If it is a BSD style license - I don't see any problems at all.
I still don't know what kind of license that library used,but one thing the author complaining is that emb not even put his name on the source or send a letter to him asking for a permission. So it is possible that emb not doing anything wrong but inappropriate as emb is a big company, well that is what he complaining
If you open source something, your users don't need to ask permission to use it, or redistribute it - as long as they follow the license. If his credentials was not in the file(s) from the start, that is his problem. If you publish open source without a license, I'd say that it would be possible to treat it about the same as a BSD license.
Lars Fosdal Issue isn't that of legality, it's that of behavior. If they were some company using it in obscure or internal products, this would be no issue. But they're not, they're the most visible and primary source and resource for Delphi, which entails responsibility. Pissing off someone that saved them months of work (not just the conversion, but also all the testing that went around it) isn't exactly a good way to promote a community spirit. Especially when official recognition would have cost them, what? Half an hour to make a proper blog post and entry in the credits?
You are right, the copyright is well documented in the source, and i look at my delphi XE, and it has the same credit in the header. I don't know what he complaining about :D I Check the post date and it is around DXE release time, so dunno which version he meant to be
Hmm, this looks like MPL there, meaning that all apps that use the MPL code should acknowledge that in their credits as well. So all FMX apps should include a "conspicuous notice" (MPL license terms) about the original code and where it (and its modifications) can be found. Iwan Cahyadi Sugeng Well he wasn't told about it, the unit bundled in Delphi is an old version, that can't be updated easily and it conflicts with his project's namespace. That's reason enough I would say.
Yes, sadly. It also occurred to other projects in the past, including some code that was donated to them then not maintained (even when the original contributor forwarded them fixes, f.i. with GIF & PNG support, DUnit, Indy...).
ReplyDeleteAnother recent exemple was when the FreePascal guys found out about the use of FPC in XE2 for iOS support only after release.
http://www.lazarussupport.com/lazarus/weblog/delphi-uses-free-pascal-for-ipad-support
While legally speaking no notice was ever required (just like in Henri Gourvest case), that's just bad manners IMHO to go at it like punks and without coordinating with the involved project maintainers.
Bundling units directly f.i. means they're "clamping down" on the namespace, especially when those units are involved in the core BPLs. And with their policy of not providing updates (or so few...) to released software, they keep the old bugs alive long after they have been fixed (which in several case was before the release of the Delphi version that bundled the units).
Sadly cant view this as work claims it as a phishing site.
ReplyDeleteLiz Kimber what?you mean the progdigy.com website?that's strange
ReplyDeleteYeah, work have some very bizarre views on websites
ReplyDeleteMaybe because it's close to "prodigy"?
ReplyDeleteWhat is this "prodigy" that might be forbidden?
ReplyDeletePhishing often relies on misspelled terms, so if the phishing filter is a bit aggressive, it'll think that "progdigy" is "prodigy" misspelled, and thus that it's a phishing attempt. Make the user think he's connecting to "prodigy" while he's ending up on "progdigy".
ReplyDeleteah i see :D
ReplyDeleteThe referenced code - which open source license was it published under?
ReplyDeleteHaven't check that detail yet
ReplyDeleteIf it is GPL/MPL or similar, that is not so much a problem for EMBT as it is a problem for those creating software using those units. If it is a BSD style license - I don't see any problems at all.
ReplyDeleteIf the license allows for redistribution, what's the problem? Isn't that exactly how it is supposed to work?
ReplyDeleteIf you don't want your code redistributed, don't put a license on it that allows for redistribution.
I know for a fact that EMBT won't touch GPL code.
ReplyDeleteI still don't know what kind of license that library used,but one thing the
ReplyDeleteauthor complaining is that emb not even put his name on the source or send
a letter to him asking for a permission.
So it is possible that emb not doing anything wrong but inappropriate as
emb is a big company, well that is what he complaining
If you open source something, your users don't need to ask permission to use it, or redistribute it - as long as they follow the license. If his credentials was not in the file(s) from the start, that is his problem. If you publish open source without a license, I'd say that it would be possible to treat it about the same as a BSD license.
ReplyDeleteLars Fosdal Issue isn't that of legality, it's that of behavior. If they were some company using it in obscure or internal products, this would be no issue. But they're not, they're the most visible and primary source and resource for Delphi, which entails responsibility. Pissing off someone that saved them months of work (not just the conversion, but also all the testing that went around it) isn't exactly a good way to promote a community spirit. Especially when official recognition would have cost them, what? Half an hour to make a proper blog post and entry in the credits?
ReplyDeleteWell, in XE3 - the header for Winapi.DirectShow9.pas looks like this - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C5KF7K0v8wisgZt1U4v9LqyPHhZ0133tK1QoDeaLOUE/edit - so it looks resolved now. Other Directxxxx.pas files also have various headers that credit the origin and state the license terms.
ReplyDeleteYou are right, the copyright is well documented in the source, and i look at my delphi XE, and it has the same credit in the header. I don't know what he complaining about :D I Check the post date and it is around DXE release time, so dunno which version he meant to be
ReplyDeleteHmm, this looks like MPL there, meaning that all apps that use the MPL code should acknowledge that in their credits as well.
ReplyDeleteSo all FMX apps should include a "conspicuous notice" (MPL license terms) about the original code and where it (and its modifications) can be found.
Iwan Cahyadi Sugeng Well he wasn't told about it, the unit bundled in Delphi is an old version, that can't be updated easily and it conflicts with his project's namespace. That's reason enough I would say.