Board index » delphi » Re: Open letter re: TNT Unicode components redistribution

2007-04-28 05:25:47 AM
delphi271
Troy Wolbrink writes:
Doubt. Spreading FUD doesn't require any intent. This whole thread,
simply by it is existance and size can create uncertainty and doubt.
People that use open source projects in their own projects depend on
the fact that no one can just come along and rip that part out of their
project or make monetary claims against them. If they use the JCL
and/or JVCL they depend on the license protecting them from any of the
contributors changing their mind and later revoking the granted rights
or making other demands. People using TntControls depended on the
license that came with it. This whole thread causes fear, uncertainty
and doubt if such licenses can be depended on. It doesn't matter if
that's what you intented. It doesn't matter if you are aware that you
are doing it. It doesn't matter if it is in any way founded in reality.
It's still FUD.
irreparable. This thread, simply by it is existance causes FUD. No
matter what you now say or do, the damage is done. Most people won't
bother reading the whole thread. But just looking at a few of the
postings should be enough for most people to cause a certain amount of
doubt. These people will think twice in the future if they should make
use of any open source project. As nothing that you can do now can
really change that anymore you've indeed caused irreparable damage. As
there is no way to say which open source project will end up with less
users and as a consequence less potential contributors because of this
thread the damage can be to any (not all, big difference there) open
source project out there. So as this thread is causing damage, the
damage is irreparable and it can hit any open source project, I am not
quite sure how my statment is overly dramatic?
the fact. I don't think there is any question that this thread does
cause fear, uncertainty and doubt? And I don't think there is any
question that the thread was started by you?
wasn't my intention.
Cheers,
Thorsten
--
 

Tim Sullivan writes:
entirely in the post you reply to here). And at how it compares to the
license that came with Tnt Controls?
With companies like Apple (MacOSX), Sun (Solaris), IBM (AIX), Microsoft
(look into ftp.exe among others, you will find a BSD copyright) and
others strongly depending on the BSD license to protect the from claims
from the original creators of the works I think it is quite likely that
whole armies of lawyers have pondered over the question of how safe the
BSD license is. And if they had any doubt at all I don't think any of
these companies would have touched BSD licensed code.
And the TntControls license is in no way whatsoever any *less* designed
to prevent revocation then the BSD license.
If you can revoke the TntControls license then you can revoke the BSD
license. If you can revoke the BSD license then all hell will break
loose because BSD licensed code is used virtually everywhere in
commercial products from large companies. You would be seeing hords of
gold diggers descending on the whole computer industry. Rather unlikely
scenario I think.
Cheers,
Thorsten
--
 

An update on my position: I spent some time trying to find something,
anything that would help tip things one way or another on this issue.
Ultimately, the best thing I have found is this:
advogato.org/article/606.html
Ultimately, it is the same argument we've been having here, though some
interesting precidents are pointed out. Of particular interest is this
snippet, which shows that things, ultimately, are still very cloudy:
---
A few more recent cases have seriously clouded the issue. There is a line
of cases on the issue of whether 17 U.S.C. 203 of the Copyright act preempts
state contract law on the issue of termination of licenses. The first is
Rano v. Sipa (9th Circuit, 1993), which mbrubeck described above.
More recently, the 7th Circuit court in Illinois, in the case of Walthal v.
Rusk (1999), came to the opposite conclusion, holding that 17 USC 203 sets a
maximum term, not a minimum, and that state law is therefore not preempted.
Illinois contracts law, like California law, holds that licenses are
terminable at will if they do not specify a term. A more recent case in the
11th Circuit called Korman v. HBC followed Walthal. I think the weight of
legal academic opinion is strongly against the Rano decision and in favor of
Walthal and Korman. However, as it stands there is a split in the circuits
which the Supreme Court may have to resolve. These laws and precedents were
made to protect starving artists from predatory record companies. They make
absolutely no sense in the free software context. But they are what we've
got. From a practical standpoint, free software authors may be free to
revoke their licenses, depending on where they (or their licensees) live.
---
Indeed, it appears that even the GPL is, in theory, revokable, though I
suspect an {*word*39} of lawsuits would fly should someone every try this. The EFF
lives for that shit. :-)
If anything, this simply lends credence that things are not cut and dried,
and there are judgements both for and against revokation rights of licenses
that do not specify that they're perpetual, irrevokable or specify a
timeline. Indeed, it is not even clear if contract law even applies to
software licensing.
These are all about 4 years old, though, so there may be something more
recent, and other countries may (and likely -do-) have different
interpretations of things.
I hope this at least clears my name of being unintelligent, ignorant and
malicious.
--
Tim Sullivan
Unlimited Intelligence Limited
www.uil.net
 

--
Tim Sullivan
Unlimited Intelligence Limited
www.uil.net
 

faster than I am thinking.
2) Please see my post at the bottom of this thread for further info.
--
Tim Sullivan
Unlimited Intelligence Limited
www.uil.net
 

Anyone moderating this as One of my posts has never appeared from a
few hours ago ?
 

On Apr 27, 10:51 pm, "Tim Sullivan" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
It appears one of my posts has somehow been censored on here. I posted
it over 3 Hours ago and
its never appeared. Just one more example of why I getting less and
less impressed with this community.
 

On 27 Apr., 23:11, "Tim Sullivan" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
in his previous post. Read it, and tell me what part of it exactly you
think is designed to prevent revokation. There is even a shorter
version with only the first two clauses.
I don't see anything that comes even close to touching on the issue of
revokation.
Sure, you can always say "Anything can happen, we can not be sure unless
there is a legal precedent". The fact is though, every case (and
decision) usually has some specifics bound to it that don't apply to
others, and besides, different courts decide differently now and then.
But that is like saying you can never be really sure until you've
personally fought the case successfully to the hightest court in every
justice system you are affected by.
So in the end we all have to judge by ourselfs. In my mind, there is
no doubt nor uncertainty here, and I don't see how you can think
otherwise. Read the BSD license. Even with the broadest interpretation
of every word, there is nothing in there about voiding rights.
Michael
 

establishment in the USA. When a license doesn't include an expiry, it
either means the minimum length of the license is the term of the copyright,
OR it means the maximum term is the length of the copyright and can be
terminates at any time. Of course, that is if contract law applies to
software licences, something which also seems to be in contention.
I'm glad that you're well versed enough in intellectual property law that
you know better than they do, but unfortunately that doesn't hold a lot of
water when it comes to premise-conclusion style argument.
board, lest the board degenerate into name calling childishness. It leads to
a higher signal-to-noise ratio, especially when people like me are prone to
getting heated and vigourously using the exclamation mark after various
expletives.
--
Tim Sullivan
Unlimited Intelligence Limited
www.uil.net
 

"Fernando Madruga" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
www.tntware.com/ministry/
...which says everything made by tntware is free, because the company has a
very specific purpose that is apparently best-served by offering everything
free of charge. This seems to me to create the impression that nothing
offered by TntWare would ever cost anybody anything.
Personally I think there was the (totally reasonable) expectation that Tnt
components were a safe bet to use as the basis for free and open source
software, based on the license under which they were offered. But I am
reminded of how the author of T.O.A.D used to loudly proclaim in his email
blasts that he gave his word that T.O.A.D. would never sell out and never
become a commercial product, and then as soon as enough money was offered to
him it turned out that his word was indeed for sale after all. At least in
that case there was a free version that was still offered alongside the
commercial version.
But I guess ethics and morals are not really on topic here anyway...
 

( I wont bother to repost It will no doubt be pulled again ) then
frankly there are alot in this community in denial of the real state
of Delphi in the overall IT Industry. It needs every friend
( Especially New users ) it can muster. The behaviour just says to me
now steer clear. Which I will . What I have upto now is going back
to VC++ 2005. I will write off the cost to experience.
 

Tim Sullivan writes:
doesn't say you have to pay taxes ;)
 

 

context from my website. This is not very ethical --- WOOPS, off topic.
 

If you or Derek say "It's illuminating" one more time, I am gonna PUKE!
--
Regards,
Jan Ferguson
XXXX@XXXXX.COM writes: