26.12.2013 у 15:45 Anton Kavalenka напісаў:
Dear FPC-Developers!
Our institution about 15 years ago was developed Turbo-Vision fork for
VGA/SVGA graphics called GraphVision.
Key features:
* TV-like objects (classes)
* BGI graphics with own clipping
* Windows bitmap, cursors resource support
*
Hey Thaddy,
Sorry to do a quick run-by hijacking of a thread, but I updated the
EGL/GLES20 patch (on bug tracker) to remove X dependency in Linux.
Thought I might share it with you as to not have you do extra work you
don't have to and include it all in one patch.
Apologies to all!
- D
On 01/16/2014 05:17 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 16:11, Travis Siegel wrote:
The only problem with the whole public domain thing is that it's not
as easy to donate things to public domain as one thinks. Beats me
why, but there's a whole legal thing, apparently, you can't just sa
My whole point is: add a license that you find suitable to your intend.
But add a license. Pref compatible with the fpc licenses.
In the case of the company: I almost forgot about it. You can be right,
but not in the us of a without big pockets to enforce it. (In Europe it
is much easier, in t
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 16:11, Travis Siegel wrote:
The only problem with the whole public domain thing is that it's not as
easy to donate things to public domain as one thinks. Beats me why, but
there's a whole legal thing, apparently, you can't just sa
On 16 Jan 2014, at 16:11, Travis Siegel wrote:
The only problem with the whole public domain thing is that it's not
as easy to donate things to public domain as one thinks. Beats me
why, but there's a whole legal thing, apparently, you can't just say
I donate this code to the public domai
On Jan 14, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
The author may also decide to declare his work as public domain - no
special licence is then necessary.
The only problem with the whole public domain thing is that it's not
as easy to donate things to public domain as one thinks.
Thaddy schrieb:
Well, I have a statement from their legal dating from 2005 amounting to:
"we use it as you intended (sic) and see no reason to quote that this
sourcecode is yours. Furthermore, the two units that contain said
sourcecode you refer to are protected under U.S. copyright law and are
And that license amounts to:
(*
* Delphi Chromium Embedded
*
* Usage allowed under the restrictions of the Lesser GNU General Public
License
* or alternatively the restrictions of the Mozilla Public License 1.1
*
* Software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" basis,
* WITH
Well, I have a statement from their legal dating from 2005 amounting to:
"we use it as you intended (sic) and see no reason to quote that this
sourcecode is yours. Furthermore, the two units that contain said
sourcecode you refer to are protected under U.S. copyright law and are
our intellectua
Mark Morgan Lloyd schrieb:
Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
If the owner wants that not to happen,, choose any of these licenses
mentioned.
This is really important. Without huge legal fees I can't get my
intellectual property back
Sorry, that's nonsense. You still have all rights on your ow
On Tue, January 14, 2014 15:38, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
>
>>> If the owner wants that not to happen,, choose any of these licenses
>>> mentioned.
>>> This is really important. Without huge legal fees I can't get my
>>> intellectual property back
>>
>> Sorry, that
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Tomas Hajny wrote:
On Tue, January 14, 2014 11:27, Kostas Michalopoulos wrote:
Well, all open source projects need a license, otherwise they're not
very useful legally speaking, so he'll need to pick one. If he doesn't
care what people do with his code he can use a permis
On Tue, January 14, 2014 11:27, Kostas Michalopoulos wrote:
> Well, all open source projects need a license, otherwise they're not
> very useful legally speaking, so he'll need to pick one. If he doesn't
> care what people do with his code he can use a permissive license like
> MIT or zlib. More in
Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
If the owner wants that not to happen,, choose any of these licenses
mentioned.
This is really important. Without huge legal fees I can't get my
intellectual property back
Sorry, that's nonsense. You still have all rights on your own software,
no need to get
Thaddy schrieb:
It happened to me once or twice ;) that a certain company with ever
changing names used my sourcecode and licensed it under their own closed
terms because i included the term: "use as you like".
Better: "free for private use".
If the owner wants that not to happen,, choose an
This is good advice.
It happened to me once or twice ;) that a certain company with ever
changing names used my sourcecode and licensed it under their own closed
terms because i included the term: "use as you like".
If the owner wants that not to happen,, choose any of these licenses
mentioned
Well, all open source projects need a license, otherwise they're not
very useful legally speaking, so he'll need to pick one. If he doesn't
care what people do with his code he can use a permissive license like
MIT or zlib. More information and a list of licenses can be found at
http://opensource.o
On 13.01.2014 15:30, Kostas Michalopoulos wrote:
Is it/will be open source? Under what license?
Author said so.
He gives it away for community for free.
He even did not require to mention his name.
Do you need a written permission from him?
regards,
Anton
btw it looked like http://www.unichrom
Is it/will be open source? Under what license?
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Anton Kavalenka wrote:
> On 07.01.2014 12:19, Michael Schnell wrote:
>>
>> What is the difference between this and the TUI that comes up when you
>> start "tp". (Same obviously already is part of the fpc source code
>
On 07.01.2014 12:19, Michael Schnell wrote:
What is the difference between this and the TUI that comes up when you
start "tp". (Same obviously already is part of the fpc source code
distribution.)
-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.f
On Dec 26, 2013, at 1:17 PM, Jim Leonard wrote:
On 12/26/2013 11:35 AM, Pierre Free Pascal wrote:
It would be nice to have it publicly available.
Seconded.
I agree with this assessment as well.
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepa
What is the difference between this and the TUI that comes up when you
start "tp". (Same obviously already is part of the fpc source code
distribution.)
-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi
Very interested !
---
John Clymer
FCC(EXW) USNR
On 2013-12-26 07:45, Anton Kavalenka wrote:
Dear FPC-Developers!
Our institution about 15 years ago was developed Turbo-Vision fork for
VGA/SVGA graphics called GraphVision.
Key features:
* TV-like objects (classes)
* BGI graphics with own clippi
On 12/26/2013 11:35 AM, Pierre Free Pascal wrote:
It would be nice to have it publicly available.
Seconded.
--
Jim Leonard (trix...@oldskool.org)
Check out some trippy MindCandy: http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.oldskool.org/
You're all ins
Envoyé : jeudi 26 décembre 2013 13:46
> À : fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
> Objet : [fpc-devel] DOS GUI
>
> Dear FPC-Developers!
>
> Our institution about 15 years ago was developed Turbo-Vision fork for
> VGA/SVGA graphics called GraphVision.
> Key features:
> * TV-like
Dear FPC-Developers!
Our institution about 15 years ago was developed Turbo-Vision fork for
VGA/SVGA graphics called GraphVision.
Key features:
* TV-like objects (classes)
* BGI graphics with own clipping
* Windows bitmap, cursors resource support
* resources in external files (streamed objects
27 matches
Mail list logo
