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)

Currently the author agreed to give away the sources to community.

Does anybody interested in the class library,

reagards,
Anton Kavalenka

I would personally be interested in those sources,

It would be nice to have it publicly available.

Pierre Muller

Pierre Free Pascal wrote

It would be nice to have it publicly available.

Seconded.

Very interested !

---
John Clymer
FCC(EXW) USNR

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

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.

Sorry for delay.

Yes, It is TV-based. Non-gui units can be used either from TV or FV.

But GUI implementation is true graphic, not pseudographic dialog frames etc. Unit names of GUI part somewhat like TPW - kernel, user, windows but they have nothing common except names.
GUI written from scratch in TV classes hierarchy.
generally it was looked like
UniChrom DOS

Btw where to upload sources - to listserver as mail attachment?

regards,
Anton

Is it/will be open source? Under what license?

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.com/history/sv95.gif

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.org/licenses

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.
This is really important. Without huge legal fees I can't get my intellectual property back....

I am sadly, and not only with this company, not alone in this.

Protect it from misuse.

Thaddy

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 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 anything "back". Even in outdated Copyright terms a "use as you like" should not mean "take ownership".

DoDi

I don't think that's necessarily the case. If you don't make a clear statement of ownership in every accessible file then it's difficult to claim that it's not in the public domain (or "res nullius"), that's why classic IBM operating systems and HP calculator firmware are now being distributed freely.

The author may also decide to declare his work as public domain - no special licence is then necessary.

Tomas

I've always felt that the whole license issue is slightly fetishist :)

Michael.

Even if it is in the public domain, you don't need to do anything to be able to use it (you can use it as well as anybody else). On the other hand, if you want to keep the licence terms under your control, you indeed need to choose an appropriate licence first.

Tomas

In contrary, nobody can state then that it *is* in the public domain.

that's why classic IBM operating systems and HP calculator firmware are now being distributed freely.

Not legally in the EU, at least not with consent of the rights holder.

Ownership expires after some time, perhaps the old Copyright protection has expired now? Otherwise ownership expires 70 years after the *death* of the author, what unlikely happened for software yet :-]

In current international law (Droit d'Auteur) *only* the author has rights on his work. Everbody else must be allowed by the author to use it. That's why a "author" note will allow to identify the person from which one can obtain the right to use it. When the author can not be identified, then the work is *not* in the public domain, nobody is allowed to use it.

DoDi

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 intellectual property." (It blahblah's a lot more, this is the essence and not verbatum) In other words: closed source.

Now you can be right and probably you are right but to be legally right in de U.S. this will cost a lot of funds that I can better use elsewhere. This type of answers is not unique to my case. I believe Henri Gourvest has a rather unique addition to some of his his open-licenced sourcecode explicitly exluding said company from using it after a similarly bad experience.

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,
* WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for
* the specific language governing rights and limitations under the License. *
* Unit owner : Henri Gourvest
* Web site : http://www.progdigy.com
* Repository : http://code.google.ctom/p/delphichromiumembedded/
* Group : http://groups.google.com/group/delphichromiumembedded *
* Embarcadero Technologies, Inc is not permitted to use or redistribute
* this source code without explicit permission.
*
*)

Which I think is rather to the point.

Well, such companies and lawyers can claim a lot. This is not different from other countries, but it may be much more expensive to defend against such piracy in the U.S. :-(

At least you know now that your license has been too generous. And your case also explains why the open source licenses are so complicated, in order to prevent Copyright adicts from hijacking open source code.

Did you contact e.g. the FSF, asking for advice or assistance in your case? When that company is known for such illegal practices, they may be interested in defending open source principles.

DoDi

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. Beats me why, but there's a whole legal thing, apparently, you can't just say I donate this code to the public domain, and then folks can do what they like with it. You'd think they could, but I've seen legal arguments, entire discussion groups, and even whole web sites devoted to the issue of what constitutes public domain, and apparently, things that are still in copyright (regardless of author intent) can't actually be given to the public domain (go figure).
So, agreed that some sort of mit license may be in order. I suppose a freeware statement would work too, but I've not seen as much information on this topic, so interpretation may be off.

You can always use the CC0 license: https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/

Jonas

Unbelievable. What a farce :)

Michael.

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 the Netherlands you just deposit your code with at the tax office - a lttle uknown -)

...or WTFPL :)

http://www.wtfpl.net/about/

Nikolay

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!

- Dennis

26.12.2013 у 15:45 Anton Kavalenka напісаў:

Dear FPC-all!

Recently we did it.

http://www.inpnet.net/gvl/

There are lots of ASM there (mostly in graphic optimization), but i think recent FPC VESA graphic does this better.

with best regards,
Anton