Hi,

there is an article on phoronix
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=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 be affected because it mimics the VCL to a large degree - and many fcl libraries mimic corresponding Delphi libraries. What do you think ?

Adrian.

For starters, most of FPC based developers are not in the US. So the rulings of a US court do not apply to them.

Many of them are based in Europe, where different laws apply.

So, strictly speaking, if it turns out the ruling applies to LCL/FCL, it means that US citizens will not be allowed to use the LCL/FCL.

Michael.

Adrian Veith 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 or Lazarus. They just wont - it will be a colossal waste of time for them with no financial reward.

Regards,
Graeme

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus-ide.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20180415/2dbbd767/attachment.html>

Graeme Geldenhuys 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, Oracle or Microsoft bother with somethingas small as FPC or Lazarus. They just wont - it will be a colossal wasteof time for them with no financial reward.

I'd suggest that that is not a safe assumption: "We didn't think anybody would notice" has never been a valid defence, and copyright is governed by international treaties.

Leaving aside the question of jurisdiction and differing tolerance of reverse engineering etc. in different countries, I'd suggest that the most relevant thing is that at one point the company that owned the rights to Delphi made commercial use of the FPC compiler. They cannot claim to be ignorant of the function and structure names in the FCL, and the fact that they (presumably) did not challenge the FPC developers at that point would probably make it more difficult to do so now.

Graeme Geldenhuys wrote

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 Embarcadero/Idera. I don't think they would tackle the FPC or Lazarus developers directly, but if there are financial successful applications in the US written in Lazarus/fpc it might be interesting for them.

Adrian.

Mark Morgan Lloyd 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 question of jurisdiction and differing tolerance of reverse engineering etc.

Nothing was reversed engineered. The API's are openly documented in help files, wiki pages etc.

the company that owned the rights to Delphi made commercial use of the FPC compiler.

And with that EMBT probably doesn't have a leg to stand on. The only game EMBT can now play is purposely change behaviour or implement things differently to FPC and Lazarusu - which EMBT is already doing. Maybe live harder for the open source projects.

Regards,
Graeme

Adrian Veith 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 LCL licenses don't require that.

Regards,
Graeme

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 4:42 AM, Adrian Veith via Lazarus <

Reading the wikipedia article (referenced from the article above): "The Court found that as a matter of law, Google's use of Java could not have fallen within fair use,..."
..."It was not transformative in the sense of a new platform either, since other Java smartphones predated Android"

In case if Wine, this is actually the case. Because no Windows API existed on Linux platforms, except for Wine.
It's also the case for FPC and LCL.

I guess the bigger complaint is about:
"It was not within any example of transformation, nor intended to permit third party interoperability, since Google had made no substantial efforts to use them for the purpose of third party interoperability. (In fact it found that Google had tried to prevent interoperability with other Java and had previously been refused a license by Sun for that reason)"

Btw, the same wikipedia article references POSIX interface. That's actually an example of copyrighted API.
In my opinion, having API copyrighted makes sense. It's similar copyrighting hardware interfaces such as USB, COM and HDMI ports. (there was quite a fight around those in the past) A well written API helps dramatically, while poorly written API requires a lot of work with every new version of API released (compare OpenGL vs DirectX)

At the same time both POSIX and OpenGL were created as "API" (interface) standards.
I'm not sure with WindowsAPI or Delphi were intended as as such. They are more platform specific interfaces (rather than cross-platform) Borland couldn't reuse VCL with Kylix, instead they came up with CLX instead.
Where Lazarus with sweat-and-blood keeps up with LCL.

Naturally, interfaces between FPC/Lazarus and Delphi are already quite far from one another.

thanks,
Dmitry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus-ide.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20180415/b4a35551/attachment.html>

Dmitry Boyarintsev 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 Sunday, April 15, 2018, Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus <

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus-ide.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20180415/67fdeaaf/attachment.html>

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 ?

Ridiculous.

Michael.

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus <

I don't think that API is reviewed on per routine basis. API is reviewed as a whole.
Also, in 2010 the first trial in US (if jurisdiction matters) court decision was that APIs cannot be copyrighted.

So later the case was changed from a copyright violation to unfair use.

That's actually contained in the court ruling as well: (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.#Appeals_Court_and_finding_of_non-fair-use )
"Instead, the Court found that Google's purpose had been to enhance its nascent Android platform's attractiveness to existing developers, who were often familiar with Java, and to avoid the "drudgery" of rewriting the code (which they could have done) needed to implement the 170 lines of API detail which were indeed required."

In general, they're not trying to impose a copyright on each function declaration owned by Oracle.
Instead, they're claiming that Google made an unfair use of Oracle's (Sun) work.
The unfairness is driven by Google competing with the Oracle with its Android system.

If Microsoft will try to come up with its own "windows emulator" for Linux, then they might run into issues with Wine (but Wine would likely win, because they were there first, providing binary compatibility)

thanks,
Dmitry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus-ide.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20180415/1e2aec8d/attachment.html>

To further clarify in the case of Wine, reverse engineering for interoperability and the results thereof can not violate any IP law. So this could not possibly affect either Wine or the LCL.