On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Dmitry Boyarintsev via Lazarus
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus
> wrote:
>>
>> Take a routine that converts an integer to a string: Why would you
>> force
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus <
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
> Take a routine that converts an integer to a string: Why would you
> force someone to change what is an obvious name, simply because someone
> else already used it ?
>
I don't think that
On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, Dmitry Boyarintsev via Lazarus wrote:
On Sunday, April 15, 2018, Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus <
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
Of course not. Copyright is theft. Ideas should always be free.
API is an implementation of an idea, and it’s up to the author to
On Sunday, April 15, 2018, Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus <
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
>
> Of course not. Copyright is theft. Ideas should always be free.
API is an implementation of an idea, and it’s up to the author to define
license of use.
Thanks,
Dmitry
--
On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, Dmitry Boyarintsev via Lazarus wrote:
Btw, the same wikipedia article references POSIX interface. That's actually
an example of copyrighted API.
In my opinion, having API copyrighted makes sense.
Of course not. Copyright is theft. Ideas should always be free.
Michael.
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 4:42 AM, Adrian Veith via Lazarus <
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
> there is an article on phoronix
> https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item=Oracle-
> vs-Google-Wine-API,
> which shows that the Google vs Oracle case is concerning Wine developers
> because
On 2018-04-15 14:14, Adrian Veith via Lazarus wrote:
> but if there are financial successful applications in the US written in
> Lazarus/fpc it might be interesting for them.
Creating commercial software, you don't have to divulge what tools you
used to develop that software. At least the FPC and
On 2018-04-15 13:11, Mark Morgan Lloyd via Lazarus wrote:
> and copyright is governed
> by international treaties.
And like Michael said, the majority of FPC and Lazarus developers are
all based outside of the USA - and most in the EU. Very different laws
in the EU.
> Leaving aside the
Am 15.04.2018 um 12:18 schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys via Lazarus:
> why would Google, Oracle or Microsoft bother with something
> as small as FPC or Lazarus. They just wont - it will be a colossal waste
> of time for them with no financial reward.
>
It wouldn't be Google, Oracle or Microsoft, but
On 15/04/18 10:30, Graeme Geldenhuys via Lazarus wrote:
On 2018-04-15 09:42, Adrian Veith via Lazarus wrote:> What do you think ?
It will never concern or worry use. Why...? If Embarcadero can't evenbother, or
simply can't stop Code Typhon in shipping a leaked FMXframework, why would
Google,
It would not be possible to ask embarcadero for
permission to use the names of the functions of the old vcl.
I think that lazarus will eventually benefit them
too, because it makes pascal / delphi better known, and
eventually a pascal user can
On 2018-04-15 09:42, Adrian Veith via Lazarus wrote:
> What do you think ?
It will never concern or worry use. Why...? If Embarcadero can't even
bother, or simply can't stop Code Typhon in shipping a leaked FMX
framework, why would Google, Oracle or Microsoft bother with something
as small as FPC
On Sun, 15 Apr 2018, Adrian Veith via Lazarus wrote:
Hi,
there is an article on phoronix
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item=Oracle-vs-Google-Wine-API,
which shows that the Google vs Oracle case is concerning Wine developers
because Wine mimics the Windows-API with the function
Hi,
there is an article on phoronix
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item=Oracle-vs-Google-Wine-API,
which shows that the Google vs Oracle case is concerning Wine developers
because Wine mimics the Windows-API with the function names and
parameters. Under this light the LCL might also
14 matches
Mail list logo