From Delphi License: "Licensee agrees not to use the Product to develop an application that is directly competitive to the Product or to any other Embarcadero products". Is that legal in EU law? It breaks basic freedom.
From Delphi License: "Licensee agrees not to use the Product to develop an application that is directly competitive to the Product or to any other Embarcadero products". Is that legal in EU law? It breaks basic freedom.
Marco Cantù Is that mean no FPC/Zeos/mORMot development with Delphi (and most of OpenSource I think)? Even Delphinous package from Alexander Benikowski is illegal in that case (competitive to the GetIt).
Marco Cantù Is that mean no FPC/Zeos/mORMot development with Delphi (and most of OpenSource I think)? Even Delphinous package from Alexander Benikowski is illegal in that case (competitive to the GetIt).
"FPC development with Delphi"? Does it at least make any sense? AFAIK, FPC don't use Delphi, so how could they benefit from it?
ReplyDeleteThat's been a license term since way back.
ReplyDeleteAlexandre Machado developing libraries working with both Delphi and FPC - for example ODS/XLSX export engines
ReplyDeleteComplete nonsense and totally unenforceable
ReplyDeleteArioch The I think this is the case of "let's try to find something wrong with a free Delphi version just to make it look bad". FPC is not a library. FPC development does not use Delphi. You can write a Delphi library - which can be used in any Delphi version, including the free ones, using Notepad. The license has been there for ages and is very clear: you cannot use free Delphi to create a product that competes with any Embarcadero product. So, you cannot use free Delphi to develop and build Lazarus IDE, for instance.
ReplyDeleteAlexandre Machado see, this SHOULD NOT be enforceable, but still who on earth might have an obligation to know ALL the emba products and update himself every day.
ReplyDeleteSay, I make a patch to Unified Interbase lib. It is not Lazarus, it is not Delphi,. it is not RemObjects Oxygene - just an SQL access library.
But it does compete with commercial EMBA FireDAC add-on to Starter/Pro editions!
By letter it does.
It reminds me how they tried to prohibit any access to databases in Starter version, while mere DNS lookup request is often being exactly requesting data from a remote DB backend.
It has a potential of that wicked old approach: "We make the laws that you are bound to break, though we typically would not enforce them. Instead we may tell you what we want you to do and if you would not comply - then we would open our eyes and persecute your crimes."
ReplyDelete/sub
ReplyDeleteArioch The Unified Interbase is an open source project. Why would you use Delphi starter for it? It claims to support several Delphi versions, so even for simple build and automated testing you need all those Delphi compiler versions installed, don't you? You are releasing source code. Can you explain me how releasing source code - which only needs a text editor to be created - is violating such license?
ReplyDeletePS: interesting to see mostly the "Lazarus" side of the fence complaining about free Delphi, isn't it?
It is true that the license statement has been in place for a long time but it certainly wasn't written by an attorney, including other EMT legal documents I've seen.
ReplyDeleteThe only enforceable aspect of that agreement is that you will lose your license. License agreements do not make laws.
Agreements written as such are called vague in the legal world.
So, you can't develop a code editor (CodeWrite) and you can't develop extensive logging (CodeSite), and you can't develop a state-of-the-art Python IDE/compiler because it would compete directly with Delphi.
Before you close the book on this remember that just looking at the features in the IDE, noticing the components palettes, method of including units/objs, behavior etc. qualifies as "usage" without ever have written a single line of code.
If that's not vague enough for you let me know and I will refine it.
By the way, FPC was initially written in Borland pascal until it was capable of bootstrapping itself.
/sub
ReplyDelete/sub
ReplyDeleteI would think that this only would be a problem if some tool written in Delphi, successfully started competing directly with Delphi. [Some EMBT product]
ReplyDeleteIn many (all?) European countries such licenses are invalid as a whole, so Delphi is actually only covered by default software licenses (copyright etc.).
ReplyDeleteAFAIK it may only be a problem if you are in the US, and even then, it's likely a FUD clause (fear of litigation, etc.)
Lars Fosdal you believe that Embarcadero's only product is Delphi?
ReplyDeleteDavid Heffernan - Sorry, I blame lack of coffee. I did mean any EMBT product. Most likely, it would only trigger for a main product, not for an addon, library, etc.
ReplyDeleteFPC is compiled with FPC - I wonder however how they compiled the very first compiler :-)
ReplyDeleteLars Fosdal ...for example FireDac? It makes Zeos and mORMot (or even UniDac) development illegal in Delphi. What with custom tools for REST? They have REST Debugger. And so on...
ReplyDeleteIn all these years of this clause being in there - do we know any examples of it being enforced?
ReplyDeleteMaciej Izak i don't know who alexander baranovsky is, but the Developer of Delphinus is me ;)
ReplyDeleteLars Fosdal They wouldn't be able to enforce it. Saying that they'd only ever try to for a main product is silly. If that's what is meant it should be stated so.
ReplyDeleteThey wouldn't want to try to enforce it so they should remove it. It is completely silly.
Suppose that they acquire a product that competes with mine. Do I now have to stop using their product? Plain silly.
Lars Fosdal no we don't, and i guess (as i am a EU citizen) that it's not easy(if even possible) to enforce it.
ReplyDeleteSo, why worry?
ReplyDeleteLars Fosdal
ReplyDeleteI do not worry o.O. For me there is not reason whatsoever to worry about anything.
Worry because inability to enforce doesn't mean that they wouldn't try to and force their customers to incur legal fees. And because it sends all the wrong signals. What does that term tell you about what Emba think of their customers?
ReplyDeleteAnd what about those of us that are not in the EU or are about to leave the EU?
David Heffernan Hope there is a 100% valid reason to leave EU. For me everything else is a bit WildWest o.O
ReplyDelete100% agree with David Heffernan . Who can help to change this evil EULA point? David Millington David Intersimone
ReplyDelete<- Not in the EU, and still doing OK. I worry more about the future changes to the compiler, than I worry about old and never before enforced license term clauses.
ReplyDeleteAlexandre Machado because EMBA is not Borland and would not donate expensive Delphi to floss developers. So if at work we use XE2 then what can use at home? Pirated XE2 ? Or should i invest quite a lot into Pro version and buy myself new licenses twice every year? Just to check if some FLOSS lib compiles in it?
ReplyDeleteFLOSS is FLOSS. For example for several years i was the only maintainer of JediVCL for Delphi 5.
Why? Because i needed it. Core developers did not needed D5 support and stroke it out. You say to develop a free library a maintainer should purchase all those new Delphi releases half-yearly just so some one else could use his lib? Well, some do. But really FLOSS is about "scratch your itch" and you cannot say to develop a library every contributor must pirchase all the versions stack. He invests in what he needs. He might give you a small bonus on top of it, but a small one. So installing free Starter edition to check forward compatibility is plausible. Purchasing Delphi for that task alone is not.
Granted, failing to provide access to sources Starter edition is badly suited for real development, but it still might be "better than nothing" for part-time contributors
Hans Lavdal Jakobsen there also was Virtual Pascal win32 IDE written in assembler and even providing few Delphi functions like dynamic arrays. In theory FPC could bootstrap with it if BP for some reason would be out of use. There also was Sybil for OS/2. However i think FPC was born at Linux and there was nothing for Linux except GNU Pascal before it came.
ReplyDeleteAlexander Benikowski enforcing some terms upon a Gasai Yuno branded person would hardly be a rational thing to try ;-D
ReplyDeleteArioch The you are just making up excuses to complain. Why don't you write a letter to EMB saying that "I write libraries for FPC/Lazarus - a competitor product - and I want to test it using your free Delphi version and I don't think it is fair to have this type of license"? Maybe they listen to you. Don't get me wrong, but I would not change it in their place...
ReplyDeleteSure, they have no interest of independent living eco-system, they want to milk the cow tightly. They caused many independent contributors quit the game. You may call all of them whiners, but they were and now they aren't.
ReplyDeleteAlexandre Machado mentioned fragment of EULA is obligatory for every Delphi SKU Level, free or paid, no matter -,-
ReplyDeleteLook, they are a company which makes money selling IDE and compilers. EMB does not even have DB tools division anymore, it's IDERA now. They are not MS, Apple or Oracle that will milk other cows, just to keep developers using free tools. Besides that please explain to me how FPC/Lazarus could help EMB make more money? IMO, FPC/Lazarus won't make EMB make more money, just like Eclipse (or any other free Java IDE) didn't help JBuilder, did it? FPC/Lazarus is not capable of bringing more developers to Pascal, because there is no real money behind it. .NET, Java, Swift, they all have big money behind it. Remove this money and you will see this ecosystem vanish within years...
ReplyDeleteAlexandre Machado If Emba acquire a product that competes with a product that I produce, what is my next move?
ReplyDeleteDavid Heffernan if this is a concern to you, write them a letter. It is clear to me that EMB don't want its free (or even paid IDEs) to be used to create more competition. As we all know well, several IDEs - and even compilers - have been created using Delphi, since mid 90's. I consider this to be legitimate in case of the free version. Why should they give you a free IDE/Compiler to create some, lets say, new Lazarus/Delphi clone?
ReplyDeleteAlexandre Machado You didn't answer my question.
ReplyDeleteAlexandre Machado It may be that the reason we have not seen the clause exercised is because the products created have been FOSS / non-commercial in nature.
ReplyDeleteDavid Heffernan you have 2 options: (1) get a lawyer, (2) move away from Delphi. Pick one.
ReplyDeleteAlexandre Machado Doesn't give me a warm feeling. Is that how you treat your customers?
ReplyDeleteAlexandre Machado and if you have an existing product for which EMBT launches a competing product, you need both a lawyer and to move away :)
ReplyDeleteDavid Heffernan What "I" have to do with this? I'm just giving my opinion about the license terms and how its purpose is clear, IMO. I think - correct me if I'm wrong - that even Marco Cantù word on this subject would not be enough for you, right? So, you clearly only have that two options.
ReplyDeleteAlexandre Machado I'm saying that I don't like this term, you say that you think it is good and you approve of it. That's all.
ReplyDeleteEric Grange I'll answer this way: given the last 20 years of IT industry which event has a higher probability of occurrence: (1) Microsoft dropping another technology, lets say, .NET , (2) Borland/CodeGear/Embarcadero enforce that license clause in court? IMO, both are very unlikely to occur, however (1) has happened many times and will happen many times more, (2) has never happened. right?
ReplyDeleteHow about (3) All C++ compilers and tools cease to exist.
ReplyDeleteSubstitute any other open language if you wish.
Anyway, if the clause will never be enforced, it should be removed right? That's contract writing 101.
David Heffernan I agree with that clause in the free version, yes. I don't agree with that clause in the paid version. We are discussing the free version here. If you are creating a commercial product and you are making money with it, the free version is not for you.
ReplyDeleteAlexandre Machado free version is not mentioned anywhere. Read the main post again.
ReplyDeleteMaciej Izak From my professional edition Delphi XE7 licence:
ReplyDeleteLicensee agrees not to use the Product to develop an application that is directly competitive to the Product or to any other Embarcadero products
Maciej Izak I'm pretty sure that you brought this issue again (which has been discussed several times over the years in EMB forums) one day after Delphi Starter went free, is not a coincidence, is it? In other thread you said and I quote "I need my own copy to test FPC {$MODE DELPHI} compatibility ;)"
ReplyDeleteSo, let's not try to fool ourselves here.
David Heffernan seems like is not worth to update my RAD XE2 Professional. XE2 has normal licence without traps. I can even do Open Source with XE2. Yay! ... -,-
ReplyDeleteMicrosoft has similar conditions for Visual Studio. Pascal has been around for over 30 years. FPC is not in violation. FPC is not written in Delphi. You can start from scratch using a separate tool chain, but you can't use Delphi to create another Delphi type compiler to compete against it. Nothing to see here. Back in the 90's MS got caught using Borland technology in their systems and had to pay 200 million to settle. That's why they added the competitor clause.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Carney going forward it means that in Delphi you cannot create any gamedev engine (even open source) because it is competitive to FireMonkey. Just simple "hello word" applications are probably safe. Each of component vendor can't feel safe with that EULA clause.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Carney License clause does not only mention creating competitive IDE and/or compiler tools. It also includes any other Embarcadero products
ReplyDeleteI was referring to FPC, which is not in violation. Most free products from established vendors have this clause. Simply ask someone from Embarcadero instead of engaging in endless speculation. MS has limits on Visual Studio Community Edition.
ReplyDeleteIf you create a server product that mimics/uses apis from an existing Embarcadero product so much so it could work as a drop in replacement, You probably would get in trouble. Mormot is using it's own calls and interface so no problem. Standards like rest and json are public domain so Embarcadero can't "own" them. FirebirdSQL is derivative of Interbase and isn't in violation (they don't use Embarcadero C++ builder). DirectX 12 is owned by MS, Delphi simply has interfaces to it, so no problem in creating games. If you are worried, contact Embarcadero or an IP Lawyer.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Carney could you cite similar controversial part of Visual Studio EULA? I can't find any part like mentioned in main post.
ReplyDeleteDavid Heffernan which brings an interesting question if "other embt products" is a normal variable or lazy one? When this list gets evaluated, when you accept the license by installing your first IDE instance and fixed at that value? Or can EMBT re-evaluate it any time they would adjust their pricelist?
ReplyDeleteJoseph Carney O'RLY?
ReplyDelete> Back in the 90's MS got caught using Borland technology in their systems and had to pay 200 million to settle. That's why they added the competitor clause.
So, did Microsoft signed EULA, then used its loopholes to make a competition, so Borland failed to fine Microsoft?
Or did Borland succesfully fined MS for violating patents, the story that has nothing with EULA and that shows the lack of this controversial clause did not harmed any Borland rights and interests?
Dalija Prasnikar and it is not the first time EMBT tries to word prohibition on remote DB access technologies into EULA.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if AnyDAC acquisition was a friendly merger or a kind of "shotgun wedding" using this clause as a threat....
Arioch The They payed a large fine. For violating the EULA. After that, if you distributed more than 10K copies of your app, you had to get permission from Borland. Ancient history. MS has a developer and monetary limit on VS Community Edition. You can't make your own version of Visual Studio or SQL Server either even with the pro versions. Try talking to Embarcadero before assuming anything. Why is that so hard for people?
ReplyDeleteBecause talks are cheap. When your customers would be fined for using your software they would not be protected in court by "Your Honor, i heard a story, our vendor once ago sipped wine with some EMBT guy and that guy told they had no intention to fine me back then".
ReplyDeleteEULA is a contract. Gossips even when spilled by so informed persons as Intersimone or Cantu are not.
Joseph Carney the wording is not about "owning" or "mimic'ing", it's about offering a competitive product.
ReplyDeleteAny 2D/3D component suite could be seen as a FMX competitor, DB connectivity layers such as found in mORMot (even ignoring all the ORM side) are competitors to EMBT layers, any database management and administration tool will easily be a direct competitor to EMBT DB tools, etc.
The root of the problem is that a lawsuit does not need to be won to be effective it only has to be long and expensive enough.
If anybody here wants to claim that VS licensing (community, pro etc.) editions have similar clauses, how about they provide the exact text from those licences. Otherwise people could just make stuff up.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Carney can you direct me at that specific litigation? I remember they had disputes over hiring ex-employees and over fast exception handling patents, but EULA issues?
ReplyDeleteDavid Heffernan Google is your friend. Most of the VCL and Firemonkey stuff is simply interfaces to existing systems, like Windows. If you use original source code (not copying existing) you can make a UI plug-in for Delphi. You can't copy the source and call it your won. That's copyright violation. You can't use Delphi to create a drop in replacement for the Delphi compiler itself. QT has a version for Delphi, which offers it'w own GUI tools. Not violating any agreement either. I see people wanting to manufacture a crisis here.
ReplyDeleteArioch The They settled out of court. It was common knowledge back in the 90's. If there is anyone left at Embarcadero from the old days, they could fill you in. Or if you have contacts with long time employees who recently left, they can give you more complete info. Some of the circumstances can't be talked about in public (standard stuff).
ReplyDeleteJoseph Carney You can't produce the text from the VS EULA?
ReplyDeleteDrop-in replacement? Did you even read the RAD Studio licence. It talks about products that compete with any Emba product. Nothing about drop-in. So any compiler would be competitive. Any IDE would.
There is nothing in common between embedding portions of RTL/VCL/FMX into your app hence redistributing them, and mere using Delphi for development.
ReplyDeleteExample: GCC - strict GPL license. However it was used for developing closed-source commercial applications for Linux, just default GPL-covered RTL was replaced with a commercial drop in.
EMBT is not even conditionally prohibiting redistibution of their runtime, which would be bad already. They word to prohibit mere DEVELOPMENT of any product similar to anything they might decide to commercialize or acquire tomorrow, in a month or in a year.
The very development becomes a game of chance.
In general, EULA terms are written to retain all possible ownership, and I really doubt that lawyers give any real thought to jurisdictional issues, since the terms they include which are not permitted in any particular jurisdiction are rendered null in that jurisdiction.
ReplyDeleteAnd regarding a competitive IDE, if it were permitted, the competitor would be significant pressure for repairs to the IDE. Just saying.
ReplyDeleteDavid Heffernan You're too lazy to do your own research? It took me 5 minutes to find the licensing pdf from MS. I'm not going to do it for you. Plus you can go to many msdn forums and ask directly. Unlike Embarcadero it seems. There is lots of commentary on Visual Studio licensing because people were worried they couldn't create commercial apps with it. They can, within limits. Why don't we get clarification from Embarcadero.
ReplyDeleteWhen I say drop in replacement, I thought I was addressing intelligent people. Just because it's not a specific word in the EULA doesn't mean it's not relevant. Why would they let someone use their tools to put them out of business? If what people saying in this thread were based on facts, then DevExpress would have to stop selling their Delphi tools. Third party reporting tools would have to stop too, plus lots of other 3rd party developers. Does anyone think Embarcadero want's to commit corporate suicide? Let's try common sense before raising the alarm.
Joseph Carney Can you show me the quote you are referring to then? Or can't you? A link to it would be useful, then we know exactly what you are referring to.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Carney I read through the current VS EULA a multiple times now and I cannot find such a clause - however back in 2003 there was a clause about distributing MSDE for using in a competitor to Office products - see VS 2003 EULA paragraph 3.2 (a). And that is a big difference (and reasonable imo) to limiting what you might create with VS itself.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Carney "Why would they let someone use their tools to put them out of business?"
ReplyDeleteUmm... because that's how basic capitalism works, and if the business you're running is so flimsy that an unestablished upstart can use what you sold them to build something better than what you sold them, and then successfully polish and market it to the point where it threatens the security of your business, that's a sure sign of your business falling so far behind that it deserves to go under. (As a general principle, not specific to this discussion.)
As for "using ones tools to create a competitor to those tools" - read http://thedailywtf.com/articles/Virtudyne_0x3a__The_Founding
ReplyDeleteAlexandre Machado "Look, they are a company which makes money selling IDE and compilers. EMB does not even have DB tools division anymore, it's IDERA now. They are not MS, Apple or Oracle that will milk other cows, just to keep developers using free tools. Besides that please explain to me how FPC/Lazarus could help EMB make more money?"
ReplyDeletePlease explain to me how developing and selling a product confers some inherent right to make money from it regardless of the competitive environment or the basic constraints of supply and demand?
".NET, Java, Swift, they all have big money behind it. Remove this money and you will see this ecosystem vanish within years..."
...just like Python!
...
...
Oh, wait...
Joseph Carney Until you can produce this supposed clause in the VS EULA it smells like a lot of BS.
ReplyDeleteLexisnexis shows a case Borland v. Microsoft, May 1997 wherein Borland's claim is that Microsoft is engaging in anticompetitive behavior by poaching its employees. Case was settled the same year, undisclosed.
ReplyDeleteTechnology is only implicit in it, whereby poached employees possess certain technology, but no claims about its actual use.
Jennifer Powell That was after MS hired Anders Hejlsberg.
ReplyDeleteStefan Glienke I think that was it. There was similar consternation when that came out, but in the end just unfounded fears. Plus you can download the Visual C++ development tools (command line only) and use them. I had to do that to install Racer for Rust msv version on windows. I'll try to dig up the exact wording, but for now, I'm at work and don't have VS on my PC. IMHO this has to do with the Delphi Compiler itself and related technology. IMHO anything you as a developer create that requires Delphi to compile from source should not be a problem. If you use Delphi to create another compiler to compete with Delphi, you might have a problem. But I have to agree, the wording they use is pretty vague and designed to give them the option of saying what is and isn't competitive without clear examples. Has anyone received a cease and desist yet?
ReplyDeleteJust found out my employer is worried about this and is going to revisit our upgrade plans. If it turns out our lawyers think it's too restrictive, then time to find another tool. Wow.
ReplyDeleteBill Meyer Hiring dates were not given, only a date range of poaching of slightly over a year. But I presume it was after his hiring but Microsoft also poached management as well.
ReplyDeleteThe key to this topic is that EMT's anticompeitive license clause is only enforceable to the extent that your license could be cancelled and that would be an action soley by EMT.
Good legal documents "define" the terms used therein so to make it clear how they apply. Terms such as "use" and "compete(s)" or modifiers thereof are not defined.
This makes the agreement vague. The courts have a very long history of tossing out claims that are made on vague agreements.
A final note is that since "use" is undefined it also includes in its literal since that you could not evalutate Delphi by merely browsing the environment, without compiling anything either. In fact, use also includes the installer.
Very vague, very unenforceable...
Jennifer Powell EULAs made their appearance over thirty years ago on software, and to this day, the only one I could support without issue is the Borland "just like a book" license. The rest are, as far as I can see, crappy by definition.
ReplyDeleteThe FTC holds as unenforceable any contract term which cannot be reasonably expected to be present. A surprisingly sensible escape hatch.
But for the most part, EULAs conjure up images of shysters in cheap suits, for me.
They need to give concrete examples of what would be competitive applications. Did they outsource their legal team?
ReplyDeleteThe inclusion of "directly" provides no clarity or definition. Without such its inference is questionable.
ReplyDeleteI asked Jim McKeeth about this license point in Octobre 2014 - he tried to get some clarification on the point internally, but was not able to get it I guess, because I never received an answer.
ReplyDeleteI think, what they try to prevent is that someone just wraps the functionality of the Delphi libraries 1 to 1 and makes it available in a metalevel IDE. Like any scripting framework with the whole RTL wrapped up for scripting in order to compete directly with Delphi. Besides of that I also think that it will be difficult to enforce.
The fairly obvious implication seems to be that you are not permitted to produce with Delphi a new IDE which provides comparable function and invokes the build process and debugger. Kind of a shame, but if someone really thought it commercially viable, such and IDE could be built with VC++.
ReplyDeleteRoland Kossow I suspect they don't worry very much about the details of EU law, since what can't be enforced will be nullified in any suit, so why pay for analysis?
ReplyDeleteBill Meyer IMO they would not care as long as someone using your tool needs the compiler. Then your customer would be their customer.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't really any official clarification on what that means. The license agreement is the official clarification - anything "official" beyond that would limit the scope of the agreement.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is similar to what Roland Kossow said. Anything that someone would do to specifically target or clone our products. I expect that unless what you are doing is pretty blatant there won't be a reaction.
Basically, don't try to bite the hand that feeds you.
Mason Wheeler Python... yes Python does not receive any money from companies, except several ones part of Python Software Foundation: https://www.python.org/psf/
ReplyDeleteJust for education PSF expects to spend US$ 300,000 in 2016. It is not much compared to other big players like Apple or Oracle, however I bet is much more than EMB can afford. If you think that no one is paying to keep Python growing, you are clearly mistaken. I will add to this: without more money, Python will never beat the big players, doesn't matter what the so called "Python community" think about it.
Jim McKeeth Thanks for your "clarification" - which should be acceptable for each one of us - probably. For me it is at least.
ReplyDeleteAlexandre Machado "Python will never beat the big players..." I gave up the concept of one programming language beating another because it does not add value.
ReplyDeleteRoland Kossow I meant "be more popular than others". That's the whole intent behind PSF, isn't it?
ReplyDelete"The mission of the Python Software Foundation is to promote, protect, and advance the Python programming language, and to support and facilitate the growth of a diverse and international community of Python programmers."
And I wonder, how Mason Wheeler thinks that they will do this without money.
I understand - I just meant "Pyhon is great for a lot of things" - lets focus on that and not on beating something else. BTW does anyone know if https://github.com/pyscripter/python4delphi/tree/master/PythonForDelphi/Components works in Berlin?
ReplyDelete> PSF expects to spend US$ 300,000 in 2016
ReplyDelete> I bet is much more than EMB can afford.
I wonder what exactly we should take for "spend" - for example donating to Python core developers is spending, be it by paying salary or paying grants.
Now, the price for Delphi Pro is about $1000
http://blog.marcocantu.com/blog/delphi_price_compared.html
So to gain those very "US$ 300,000 in 2016" EMBT only has to sell 1000 "boxes" of Delphi Pro without support license.
Less than thousand, if there were some support licenses sold as well.
Less than thousand, if there were some Database Pack or Mobile Pack sold.
Less than thousand, if there were Enterprise or Architect version sold.
Less than thousand, if there were RAD Studio packages sold, not just Delphi.
> I bet is much more than EMB can afford.
So, this transforms into a claim, that EMBT failed to sell a thousand of boxes of their most cheap commercial offer. World-wide. During a year.
If true - then discussing anything w.r.t. Delphi and its EULa is literally flogging a dead horse.
/sub
ReplyDeleteArioch The I won't spend much more time on this useless thread, which seems to be created to complain that "people actually interested in FPC/Lazarus, find that Delphi license won't let them play with it". Paying for core developers is not money spent on education, unless they are committing fraud. Also, your 5 y.o. child math seems to infere that one can spend all company's revenue on education. E.g.: Your company sells 1,000,000 this year, so you can spend the same amount in education. All other expenses and salaries are paid by someone else. Anyway, I really don't care about FPC/Lazarus developers complaining about Delphi license clauses...
ReplyDeleteAlexandre Machado
ReplyDelete>Python... yes Python does not receive any money from companies,
>except several ones part of Python Software Foundation:
>https://www.python.org/psf/
The Python Software Foundation isn't a company. It's a foundation set up to manage the development of and promote python. It has no income other than donations. I know there's going to be a book coming out with contributions from Python developers and the profits are going to go to the PSF, etc.
>Just for education PSF expects to spend US$ 300,000 in 2016.
You make it sounds like more is going to be spent on development. On average, the PSF pays out less than one developers' yearly salary in grants per year for coding. Python developers are not paid to code Python. Even the creator of the language, Guido Van Rossum, isn't employed full time working on Python. He presently works at Dropbox and the arrangement he has is that he spends two days a week working on the Python language and the other three he does regular DropBox work. In fact, he declined a management position and opted for a regular development job - which means someone has to perform a code review on the guy who created the language they're using. :-)
This, honestly, is a huge win for Python compared to Delphi. Delphi management doesn't use Delphi. EMBT's developers - when it had developers, anyway - came in, worked on the standard library 9 to 5, and then went home. They don't have to use the stuff they produce in the real world. For instance, none of the Delphi developers are web programmers by definition. Yet they produced a REST unit they're never going to have to use. When Python had to make some decisions about its standard library and web-related modules, Guido declined because he doesn't do that kind of work every day and gave the decision to someone whose full-time job was web coding. You can be certain that person spent a lot of time making the right decision, because they were going to be stuck using it every day.
> It is not much compared to other big players like Apple or Oracle,
Again, Python has no commercial sponsors.
>however I bet is much more than EMB can afford.
$300,000 is about the cost of 740 people upgrading their copy of Delphi Pro.
>If you think that no one is paying to keep Python growing, you are
>clearly mistaken.
Alexandre, you are the one who is mistaken. Python is open source and no one is paying to develop core Python (which is different from companies making internal libraries open source).
>I will add to this: without more money, Python will never beat the big
>players
It's already one of the most popular languages in the world without any money. It did that by being open source with a friendly language, easy to read, consistently designed, listening to its users, and meeting real-world problems. It had nothing to do with money.
> doesn't matter what the so called "Python community" think about it.
It certainly doesn't matter what the "Delphi community" thinks about it.
I think everyone's missing the real goal of this EULA change. When I argued about it with Marco Cantu, he claimed that if anyone had a problem with it that EMBT's legal department would send them a waver for that clause. He kept insisting it wouldn't apply to any of us, but in true Embarcadero secret agent fashion, wouldn't explain who it would apply to or why if we can all just get exemptions they don't just change the EULA. As seen, even Jim McKeeth can't clarify the intent.
ReplyDeleteI did some digging, and I think I arrived at the answer. I'll leave it to readers to judge if they find my suggested answer in keeping with Embarcadero's past mode of operation.
Examine this table here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_database_tools
Scan down the column that shows what language the tool was written in. Note the surprisingly large number of "Delphi", "Embarcadero Delphi" and "Borland Delphi" entries. Check out "Navicat", which is the top software in the field and commands a much larger share than EMBT's own products. Note which languages their main tools are developed with.
I think this clause is simply an attempt to screw with their competitors in the database tools arena. It's hard to believe it's a coincidence. The legal jeopardy it puts the rest of us in is just collateral damage.
en.wikipedia.org - Comparison of database tools - Wikipedia
Today I discovered that G+ also lets you block trolls. Thanks G+!
ReplyDelete