Open letter re: TNT Unicode components redistribution
Troy Wolbrink
version of TNT Unicode controls available for redistribution from their
website. In some ways I'm very flattered that they would desire to do so.
It's been great to see the popularity of these components grow over time.
But, although I am not a lawyer, I do feel compelled to state that I believe
they are not in compliance with copyright law. When I sold the copyright to
TMS, this included the right to worldwide redistribution. As a software
developer, I believe strongly in intellectual property rights. And as such
I believe that, as the original owner of the copyright, I do have implicit
permission to revoke certain aspects of the original copyright, and to
transfer those rights to another party.
Personally I'd like to see the Delphi community stand behind TMS, and to
support them in their efforts to build on top of where I left off. They
have already done a great job.
Sincerely,
Troy
Eugene Mayevski
You wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:08:25 -0400:
TW> I believe that, as the original owner of the copyright, I do have
implicit
TW> permission to revoke certain aspects of the original copyright, and to
TW> transfer those rights to another party.
Everything depends on the exact wording of your license (I didn't read it),
but if you gave the rights to distribute the components in source code, then
people can do this without your permission. If you gave the right to modify
the components, than people can do this. I can see nothing that would let
you revoke the previously given permissions. The license is a contract,
where you are also bound by certain terms, like it or not. Your license
doesn't include, I suspect, the terms for termination of the license or the
ending date of the license validity, so you can't complain now. It's my
opinion as a lawyer's one. There's one thing to account - the laws are
different in different countries, so in one country you might be right, but
in most countries you are not.
With best regards,
Eugene Mayevski
http://www.SecureBlackbox.com - the comprehensive component suite for
network security
Fernando Madruga
> And I haven't even read the entire original free license granted with
Actually, you have! You just didn't know you had! :)
The only other things left are the copyright and disclaimer. Here's the
full text:
TntWare Delphi Unicode Controls
http://www.tntware.com/delphicontrols/unicode/
Copyright (c) 2002-2007, Troy Wolbrink (www.tntware.com)
License
Redistribution and use in binary forms, with or without modification,
are permitted. Redistribution and use in source forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the redistributions of source
code retain the above copyright.
Disclaimer
This software is provided by the author "as is" and any express or
implied warranties, including, but not limited to, the implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are
disclaimed. In no event shall the author be liable for any direct,
indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or consequential damages
(including, but not limited to, procurement of substitute goods or
services; loss of use, data, or profits; or business interruption)
however caused and on any theory of liability, whether in contract,
strict liability, or tort (including negligence or otherwise) arising in
any way out of the use of this software, even if advised of the
possibility of such damage.
Herbert Sitz
news:462f...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Hello!
> You wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:08:25 -0400:
>
> TW> I believe that, as the original owner of the copyright, I do have
> implicit
> TW> permission to revoke certain aspects of the original copyright, and
to
> TW> transfer those rights to another party.
>
> Everything depends on the exact wording of your license (I didn't read
it),
> but if you gave the rights to distribute the components in source code,
then
> people can do this without your permission. If you gave the right to
modify
> the components, than people can do this. I can see nothing that would let
> you revoke the previously given permissions. The license is a contract,
> where you are also bound by certain terms, like it or not. Your license
> doesn't include, I suspect, the terms for termination of the license or
the
> ending date of the license validity, so you can't complain now. It's my
> opinion as a lawyer's one. There's one thing to account - the laws are
> different in different countries, so in one country you might be right,
but
> in most countries you are not.
A license is not usually in itself a contract; it's usually granted as part
of execution of one party's duties under a contract. In particular, when
you give a license away for free with no responsibilities on the licensee's
side, there is not any contractual relationship. Use of a free license that
places restrictions on the user may create a contractual relationship.
Relying on a free license may prevent revocation by licensor under legal
doctrine of promissory estoppel, even if there was never technically a
contractual relationship.
That doesn't mean that the rights granted can be revoked though. I'm
curious, does Troy think he can suddenly revoke everyone's rights so that
all applications distributed using TNT Unicode components are now in
violation of copyright? Sorry, doesn't work that way.
In reading the license excerpt for the TNT Unicode components at one of the
websites in previous threads, it says, ""Redistribution and use in binary
forms, with or without modification, are permitted. Redistribution and use
in source forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that
the redistributions of source code retain the above copyright."
Sounds to me like the redistribution of boht binaries and original source
are allowed under the granted license. If so, this is something like the
GPL's "release into the wild". The original owner can pull the code and
refuse to make it available anymore. He or she may also sell his/her
rights, and further developments may be sold under commercial license. But
the only thing sold is what the original owner had a right to. If original
owner can't revoke previously granted free licenses, then neither can anyone
who purchases rights from him. Previous versions are "in the wild" and can
legally be used, forked, developed into newer versions so long as all newer
versions are comsistent with the original free license.
FWIW, I am a former lawyer, though not one with any special expertise in IP
law. And I haven't even read the entire original free license granted with
TNT Unicode. But it strikes me that allowing redistribution probably places
the license in same situation as licensors who want to discontinue
publishing of gpl'd open source components. The best they can do is develop
newer versions that are commercial-only. Previously released versions are
freely available "in the wild".
-- Herbert Sitz
Eugene Mayevski
You wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:49:38 -0500:
HS> A license is not usually in itself a contract; it's usually granted as
HS> part of execution of one party's duties under a contract. In
HS> particular, when you give a license away for free with no
HS> responsibilities on the licensee's side, there is not any contractual
HS> relationship.
In fact, this is a contract too. The legal act, where two or more sides
perform, is a contract. It doesn't matter if something is given away. For
example, there's a thing called "gift contract", where one person presents
something to other person. This is still a contract which needs to be
apostilized in certain cases, and it's called "contract" on the papers.
Maybe we are talking about different legal systems, though, so most likely
you are correct for (for example) US legal system, while in Europe this
works in a different way.
Bernhard Geyer
And with the 2 Updates they made the provide a Valuable-Add-On to the
last Free-Version. If you are selling close-source-SW that shouldn't be
a problem to spend 30 € for a complete Component Pack. If so, you can
develop the new enhancement (Vista-Support, ...) by your own.
The problem is for other Open-Source-Solutions like the tools from MySQL
that they now depends (besides a working Delphi-IDE) on a commercial
component pack.
Tim Sullivan
> I'm curious, does Troy think he can suddenly revoke everyone's rights so
> that
> all applications distributed using TNT Unicode components are now in
> violation of copyright? Sorry, doesn't work that way.
Sure it does. He has not, at any time, given up his rights to the ownership
of the code. As the owner, he can change his mind about how his code can be
used. Effective when he sold the rights, redistributing old copies of the
code, despite what it may say in the header, is a violation of his
copyright. No matter what else, HE wrote the code, and HE is the SOLE person
who gets to decide what happens with the code that HE wrote. You, as a user
of HIS code, are subject to the decision HE makes about HIS code. Just
because you don't like it doesn't change that.
As an aside, using non-open-source components in an open source project is
just plain stupid.
--
Tim Sullivan
Unlimited Intelligence Limited
http://www.uil.net
Carlo Kok
Wouldn't what you said imply someone could give out something under the
GPL or MPL and later come back to that decision and take it back? This
has happened a few times and never could the original author take it back.
--
Carlo Kok
Tom Corey
> No matter what else, HE
> wrote the code, and HE is the SOLE person who gets to decide what
> happens with the code that HE wrote. You, as a user of HIS code, are
> subject to the decision HE makes about HIS code.
Say it was released with a certain license clause. Copies were made at
public and personal archives all over the world, containing that
licence clause. Potentially millions of copies.
The next year, the author decides to revoke that license.
The year after that, Joe Coder stumbles across the original files
somewhere, decides they're exactly what he needs, and sees from the
license clause that he can use them any way he wants.
Just as a practical matter then, how does your interpretation deal with
this situation? What is Joe's responsibility, or liability? How about
the author's responsibility?
Herbert Sitz
news:462f...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Disclaimer: IANAL.
>
> > I'm curious, does Troy think he can suddenly revoke everyone's rights so
> > that
> > all applications distributed using TNT Unicode components are now in
> > violation of copyright? Sorry, doesn't work that way.
>
> Sure it does. He has not, at any time, given up his rights to the
ownership
> of the code.
No, he hasn't given up exclusive ownership of the code. But that's a far
cry from retaining the ability to revoke rights he has granted to others
under the license he used. What he gave away was a right to other people
allowing them to use and redistribute both binary and source code versions,
subject to his restriction on including the copyright notice. When he sells
ownership of the code, he sells subject to the same limitations he was under
himself. One of those limitations was that there were versions of the code
that had been granted under to users under a very permissive license, that
in all likelihood cannot be revoked.
Assume for a moment that you're correct that he can revoke the source code
distribution rights of users that they gained under the free license. Can
he also revoke rights that were granted to redistribute the binaries? Why
or why not and how is that different from the source code rights? Another
question: If he can revoke right to redistribute that he granted then why
can he not also revoke the right to _use_ the source and/or binaries that
users gained under the free license? Why or why not and how is that
different from revoking merely the right to redistribute? My answer is that
all of them are the same and none are revocable.
> As the owner, he can change his mind about how his code can be
> used. Effective when he sold the rights, redistributing old copies of the
> code, despite what it may say in the header, is a violation of his
> copyright. No matter what else, HE wrote the code, and HE is the SOLE
person
> who gets to decide what happens with the code that HE wrote.
Those sentences above are all just blatantly false and demonsrate a complete
understanding of software licensing. Microsoft has granted millions of
licenses to the Windows OS and they "own" the code. From what you're saying
Microsoft could sell the rights to the Windows OS and "effective when they
sold the rights" users under the licenses that Microsoft granted would be in
violation of copyright. That's ridiculous. The purchaser who buys the IP
ownership from Microsoft buys "subject to" license that have previously been
granted. If those previously granted licenses included right to
redistribute and/or modify the source, then the new owner takes subject to
others having those rights. The owner can't sell more than he has. If
owner of TNT Unicode could not himself revoke his grants giving rights to
redistribute, then when he sells his rights the new purchaser has no right
to revoke either.
>No matter what else, HE wrote the code, and HE is the SOLE person
> who gets to decide what happens with the code that HE wrote.
> of HIS code, are subject to the decision HE makes about HIS code. Just
> because you don't like it doesn't change that.
More falsehood. Take MySQL AB (the company that publishes MySQL) as an
example. MySQL AB wrote the code, owns the code, and gets to decide what
happens with MySQL code. MySQL AB publishes MySQL under the GPL and under
commercial licenses. MySQL AB can at any time decide that they no longer
want to publish MySQL under gpl and that it will not be solely a commercial
product. BUT, previous versions of MySQL that were published with right to
redistribute under the gpl are not revoked if they do that, since MySQL has
no right to revoke what they have granted. Users who have gpl licenses are
free to modify and redistribute, despite fact that MySQL has decided not to
publish under gpl anymore. MySQL AB could sell ownership of MySQL to
another entity, but anyone purchase from MySQL takes subject to same
restrictions as were on MySQL, i.e., they can't revoke licenses to
redistribute that were already granted.
Ownership of intellectual property can be divied up in an infinite variety
of ways. Having "owership" doesn't necessarily mean much if you've granted
licenses to others that give them extensive rights. For one thing, you lose
much of your exclusive control over the code when you grant irrevocable or
non-revokable licenses to others that allow them the right to modify and
redistribute.
> As an aside, using non-open-source components in an open source project is
> just plain stupid.
Don't know what you're talking about here. I was comparing the TNT Unicode
license to the GPL and suggester there were similarities in the inability of
the copyright owner to revoke rights granted under the free licenses. I
never said anything about using non-open-source components in an open source
project. I was just suggesting that the TNT Unicode license has
similarities to open source licenses.
-- Herb
Eugene Mayevski
You wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:40:36 -0400:
TS> violation of his copyright. No matter what else, HE wrote the code, and
TS> HE is the SOLE person who gets to decide what happens with the code
TS> that HE wrote.
Until he gives it away.
Tim, if you are not a lawyer, please don't confuse others. Your private (and
quite misleading) opinion should be kept private until you ask your IP
lawyer for advise.
Herbert Sitz
> You wrote on Wed, 25 Apr 2007 10:49:38 -0500:
>
> HS> A license is not usually in itself a contract; it's usually granted
as
> HS> part of execution of one party's duties under a contract. In
> HS> particular, when you give a license away for free with no
> HS> responsibilities on the licensee's side, there is not any contractual
> HS> relationship.
>
> In fact, this is a contract too. The legal act, where two or more sides
> perform, is a contract. It doesn't matter if something is given away. For
> example, there's a thing called "gift contract", where one person presents
> something to other person. This is still a contract which needs to be
> apostilized in certain cases, and it's called "contract" on the papers.
>
But what exactly is the duty of performance on part of TNT Unicode
licensees? It seems a stretch to me to see where we could get to any true
contract under any system. At least in U.S. and Great Britain it seems to
me that there's nothing here that could give rise to a true contract.
Doesn't matter, though, the same result as if there had been a true contract
may be reached under quasi-contract doctrine, under common law equitable
doctrine of "promissory estoppel", probably other ways.
In any case, even if the grant of the TNT Unicode license was purely a gift,
giftors are not allowed to retract gifts willy nilly. Once you give
something it's gone and you lose rights to control it. The TNT Unicode
license (like some open source licenses) may be construed as a "conditional
gift", i.e., one that can be revoked if licensee violates restrictions on
redistribution. But unless licensee violates those restrictions there's no
basis to revoke the license.
> Maybe we are talking about different legal systems, though, so most likely
> you are correct for (for example) US legal system, while in Europe this
> works in a different way.
Yes, your wacky civil law systems may classify things different. In any
case, it doesn't matter, results would likely be the same under contract
law, quasi-contract, equitable principles, and/or law pertaining to gifts.
-- Herb
Troy Wolbrink
> In any case, even if the grant of the TNT Unicode license was purely a
> gift,
> giftors are not allowed to retract gifts willy nilly.
In this case, it's not the gift that is revoked. Just permission to give
others the gift.
--Troy
Troy Wolbrink
> Tim, if you are not a lawyer, please don't confuse others. Your private
> (and
> quite misleading) opinion should be kept private until you ask your IP
> lawyer for advise.
To be fair, there are many, many opinions being thrown around on this topic,
and most are put forth as assertions. I don't think we should single out
those with whom we don't agree and tell them to keep quiet.
--Troy
Herbert Sitz
news:462f937b$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Troy -- Yes, of course, as someone with a real interest in this issue you
should contact a lawyer yourself and no rely on anything you read in this
thread. But as a lawyer myself, I can guarantee you that I'm going to point
out when a non-lawyer makes ridiculous and misleading assertions. -- Herb
Herbert Sitz
Troy -- It sure sounds nice when you phrase it that way. Unfortunately, the
legal problem is that the gift you gave to others included not just the
right to _use_ the TNT Unicode components and source. Your gift also
included the right to _redistribute_ binaries or source to others, those
rights were part of the gift itself. Feel free to email me privately if
you have more questions. -- Herb
Matthew Jones
> used
Nice idea. Me, I think I'll change my mind about our software licenses,
and make the cost ten times as much. Sorry if anyone didn't realise I
could change my mind.
Once you have issued something with a license, you cannot go back. Witness
FireBird. Do you think that would be alive if Borland could have said they
wanted to change their minds? I suspect they really did pay lawyers
(twice) over that.
/Matthew Jones/
Troy Wolbrink
> should contact a lawyer yourself and no rely on anything you read in this
> thread.
But that would cost money, and my interests are not that "real". I'm now
just a private Delphi developer watching from the outside.
> But as a lawyer myself, I can guarantee you that I'm going to point
> out when a non-lawyer makes ridiculous and misleading assertions.
I appreciate that! :^)
--Troy
Michael Fritz
> Personally I'd like to see the Delphi community stand behind TMS, and to
> support them in their efforts to build on top of where I left off. They
> have already done a great job.
Troy,
besides the legal discussion, I, too, think that TMS is doing a fine job
and has already enhanced those great components. You get support, bug
fixes and new components based on the work of yourself (Troy) and it's
really worth those 30 EUR.
I'm not affiliated with TMS at all though I did buy their component pack
and I did not buy the TNT controls so far 'cause I simply was not in
need of, but one never knows.
Just my 2 cents...
--
cu,
Michael
Tim Sullivan
Wrong.
> Tim, if you are not a lawyer, please don't confuse others. Your private
> (and quite misleading) opinion should be kept private until you ask your
> IP lawyer for advise.
I believe that same advice should be applied to you and everyone else in
this thread. Please don't chastise me, or judge my opinion by your own
just-as-flawed ignorance. Just because I prefaced my comments and you didn't
doesn't make you correct.
He did NOT give away ownership of the code. He did NOT make an "open source"
license. He retains full ownership and control over what is done with the
code.
The reality here is that no one here is going to do shit about this. There
will be no law suits, there will be no lawyers consulted and there will be
no resolution. All there will be is a bunch of whiners who want something
for nothing doing whatever they want without reprecusion. That's life, I
guess.
Tom Corey
> There will be no law suits, there will be no lawyers consulted and
> there will be no resolution. All there will be is a bunch of whiners
> who want something for nothing doing whatever they want without
> reprecusion.
So people disagreeing with your interpretation of a license somehow
equates to them being a bunch of cheapskate, disrespectful whiners?
That's an interesting leap to make. Absurd and unfounded, but
interesting.
Wilson
> doing whatever they want without reprecusion.
This kind of wording is completely unfair. I don't believe someone entered
this thread just because they want something for free. I don't believe you
believe this. The points you've made so far are quite illogical. It's
amazing to hear such things from a programmer supposed to think logically.
Tim Sullivan
simply because they were perhaps a little naive in their wording is what
equates them to cheapskate, disrespectful whiners.
Troy has asked nicely, several times, for people to respect his decision
about the controls. The cost to people who use them is tiny if they want to
get updates, but instead people are banding together against the Unfair
Mistreatment and Tyranny of TMS and Troy who have the GALL to charge
something for something of worth.
It's shameful.
Uffe Kousgaard
> No, people who are taking advantage of a small developer (two, actually)
> simply because they were perhaps a little naive in their wording is what
> equates them to cheapskate, disrespectful whiners.
The only ones naive must be TMS if they have paid a huge amount of money for
a product, which is virtually "open sourced".
Regards
Uffe Kousgaard
Hannes Danzl[NDD]
> has already enhanced those great components. You get support, bug fixes and
> new components based on the work of yourself (Troy) and it's really worth
> those 30 EUR.
And that's the way to go. They can NOT revoke the license, thus the best way
is to extend/better the stuff and people will come and buy it anyways.
--
Hannes Danzl [NexusDB Developer]
Newsgroup archive at http://www.tamaracka.com/search.htm
Herbert Sitz
> simply because they were perhaps a little naive in their wording is what
> equates them to cheapskate, disrespectful whiners.
>
> Troy has asked nicely, several times, for people to respect his decision
> about the controls. The cost to people who use them is tiny if they want
to
> get updates, but instead people are banding together against the Unfair
> Mistreatment and Tyranny of TMS and Troy who have the GALL to charge
> something for something of worth.
>
> It's shameful.
>
There's a big difference between asking someone nicely to respect a decision
and refrain from doing something that they have the right to do, and telling
them that their legal right to do so has been revoked.
Also, I'm not aware of anyone who is saying anything about "unfair
mistreatment" or "tyranny" or "gall" for TMS to now be charging for the
product. I think it's great that the product is commercial now, and that
it's likely to be further developed and supported.
However, I'm not in favor of users of previous users of TNT Unicode being
misled about their legal rights.
-- Herb Sitz
Ivan Pastine
> That's life, I guess.
>
have paid for license for the ElPack controls. I also use Bruno's excellent TMS controls so his
takeover of the TNT stuff can only be good news for me. I am quite happy about it and expect that
Bruno will do the same kind of work on the TNT stuff that he does on all his other projects and a
year from now nobody will want to use the old stuff anyway.
However...
If somebody started a project using TNT controls and chose them because they were redistributable, I
think that they would be justified in being annoyed at the attempt to change the license ex post.
Adem
>And that's the way to go. They can NOT revoke the license, thus
>the best way is to extend/better the stuff and people will come
>and buy it anyways.
here here.
I think it is unfortunate that Troy even contemplates revoking
what he has granted. IANAL, but AFAIK it does not work that way.
I think it would be much nicer of him (or of TMS) to provide
copies of TNT Unicode (a snapshot of just before the licensing
terms changed) on his/their site(s).
This would leave a much more agreable taste of it all --what
instead turned into a bbitter memory.
better and updated ones would win out in the longer term anyway.
Tom Corey
> No, people who are taking advantage of a small developer (two,
> actually) simply because they were perhaps a little naive in their
> wording is what equates them to cheapskate, disrespectful whiners.
> Troy has asked nicely, several times, for people to respect his
> decision about the controls. The cost to people who use them is tiny
> if they want to get updates, but instead people are banding together
> against the Unfair Mistreatment and Tyranny of TMS and Troy who have
> the GALL to charge something for something of worth.
> It's shameful.
It would be shameful, if anyone was saying "Screw you, Troy, I'll do
whatever I want". But of course, that isn't happening. We're having a
good old fashioned net-brawl over what the actual wording of the
license really means, but that's harmless fun. It's an abstract
argument, and doesn't really have anything to do with what the product
is, who holds the copyright, or how anyone intends to use or abuse the
code. It's just about what the license means. Surely you've been here
long enough to know that this community loves to argue semantics.
It seems to me that you resent being told you're wrong, but instead of
presenting a decent counter-argument you've chosen to demonize the
people who disagree with you, casting them personally in a negative
light. Of course, none of them actually have whined, or claimed they
want something for nothing, or asserted that they will do whatever they
want without regard to or respect for anyone. You are falsely assigning
those attributes to those who disagree with you. Not exactly a winning
strategy.
Jim Davis
lets put this in perspective :))
jim
Herbert Sitz
news:xn0f5dqys...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> It's an abstract
> argument, and doesn't really have anything to do with what the product
> is, who holds the copyright, or how anyone intends to use or abuse the
> code. It's just about what the license means. Surely you've been here
> long enough to know that this community loves to argue semantics.
>
Tom -- I agree with a lot of what you say, but disagree that this thread is
one without any practical implications. Now, in all likelihood, TMS will
market TNT Unicode controls as a commercial product and continue to develop
and support it. That's great and I applaud that. I'm glad there's work
being done on 3rd party unicode for Delphi.
But the terms of the license we're discussing here could potentially have
practical implications. For example, if someone wanted to take the most
recent pre-TMS version, the last one that was given freely and included
license to modify and redistribute, then they could fork the project,
develop updates and improvements beginning with that version, and make them
available to others. The only restriction seems to be that they would have
to include a reference to the original copyright. I don't even see a
restriction on taking the free code, building on it, and _charging_ for the
updated version. There doesn't even appear to be a restriction on adding
licensing provisions that would limit the ability of users of this modified
version from modifying and/or redistributing it (a quick look at the
language make me think it's hopeless ambiguous and I have no idea what
default interpretation is applied in those cases). In any case, it seems to
me that the original license is one that at the very least is "open source
compatible" so if someone wanted to continue development as an open source
project they could do that. As I said, it might even be possible for them
to develop as a closed source commercial project. Anyone interested in
doing that would want to consult a lawyer, of course.
Again, I'm not saying that I think there's anything bad about TMS now
selling the TNT Unicode components. I think that's great. As a former
lawyer with a better understanding of the issues than the typical poster in
Borland newsgroups, I'm just conjecturing about the legal effect of the old
free license.
-- Herb
Oliver Townshend
> curious, does Troy think he can suddenly revoke everyone's rights so that
> all applications distributed using TNT Unicode components are now in
> violation of copyright? Sorry, doesn't work that way.
There's at least one precedent in Australia, Trumpet vs Ozemail, that says
it does. Quoting from http://www.ilaw.com.au/public/licencearticle.html:
"The dispute came about when OzEmail wished to distribute copies of the
unregistered version of Trumpet Winsock on the front cover of Australian
Personal Computer magazine. The managing director of OzEmail contacted the
author Peter Tattam and requested his permission to include the program on
the cover disk, but permission was refused on the ground that the version
that OzEmail sought to distribute did not come with a timelock to disable it
after 30 days. Tattam did give permission to distribute a time-locked
version of the software, but as the time-locked version was not available by
press time, OzEmail distributed the unlocked version instead. OzEmail took
the view that regardless of Tattam's specific refusal of permission for it
to distribute the unlocked version, the shareware licence itself prevailed
over what Tattam had said, and it allowed the distribution to go ahead.
The Court found that the opposite was the case. Justice Heerey said:
Determinative of this case in my opinion is the proposition that, prior to
the distributions complained of, Mr Tattam expressly told OzEmail that he
objected to OzEmail using Trumpet Winsock 2.0B and thus revoked any licence
OzEmail might have had.65
It was found in the alternative that if OzEmail's licence to distribute the
software had not been revoked, OzEmail had breached the terms of the licence
by making the modifications to the software that it did.
So what does this tell us about open source software licences? The case
contains good and bad implications. On the positive side, it tells us that
the licence terms of a non-contractual software licence agreement can be
enforced, including terms which prohibit the software from being distributed
with modifications or deletions that the licensor has not decided to permit.
However, the case also confirms that a software licence that is granted
without consideration can be revoked by the licensor at any time so long as
notice of the revocation is conveyed to the licensee; this is not such good
news for the open source software community."
Oliver Townshend
d r
> I believe that, as the original owner of the copyright, I do have implicit
> permission to revoke certain aspects of the original copyright, and to
> transfer those rights to another party.
Hi Troy,
can you confirm that this is original unaltered version of your
copyright notice accompanying version 2.3.0 of TNT Unicode controls:
**************
"TntWare Delphi Unicode Controls
http://www.tntware.com/delphicontrols/unicode/
Copyright (c) 2002-2007, Troy Wolbrink (www.tntware.com)
License
Redistribution and use in binary forms, with or without modification,
are permitted. Redistribution and use in source forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the redistributions of source
code retain the above copyright.
Disclaimer
This software is provided by the author "as is" and any express or
implied warranties, including, but not limited to, the implied
warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are
disclaimed. In no event shall the author be liable for any direct,
indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or consequential damages
(including, but not limited to, procurement of substitute goods or
services; loss of use, data, or profits; or business interruption)
however caused and on any theory of liability, whether in contract,
strict liability, or tort (including negligence or otherwise) arising in
any way out of the use of this software, even if advised of the
possibility of such damage."
**************
If this is true and unaltered version, what part of the paragraph in the
'License' section you don't understand?
I will definitely buy version provided by TMS software because I really
want to support this great project, but let be honest real and call
spade a spade! You have no right to revoke the redistribution rights of
version 2.3.0, from versions after that I guess you could have doen
whatever you deemed sutiable provided you changed the license accordingly.
Kind regards,
Dragan
Hannes Danzl[NDD]
> instead turned into a bbitter memory.
Well, if 30$ is the problem, then good night. It's not about money, it's not
about good or bad taste. All that is about is the idea about revoking a
license, which simply won't work.
Tim Sullivan
> presenting a decent counter-argument you've chosen to demonize the
> people who disagree with you, casting them personally in a negative
> light.
:-) I'm all about being told I'm wrong. What I believe to be right and what
is legally right are, of course, often completely different. That doesn't
change the fact that I think that actively working against the original
author of the code that has provided so much benefit to so many is shameful.
I'm surprised that more people don't feel the same way.
Adem
>30 euros a bitter memory ?
>lets put this in perspective :))
No!... It's not that he arranaged a commercial venue at all;
there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Please re-read the first paragraph of my above post which
was:
"I think it is unfortunate that Troy even contemplates
revoking what he has granted. IANAL, but AFAIK it does not
work that way."
Do you still see me objecting to him charging for it? if so,
i should have rephrased it such as below:
"I think it is unfortunate that Troy even contemplates
revoking what he has granted (*the license*). IANAL, but
Oliver Townshend
> what is legally right are, of course, often completely different. That
> doesn't change the fact that I think that actively working against the
> original author of the code that has provided so much benefit to so many
> is shameful. I'm surprised that more people don't feel the same way.
If lawyers were always right, they wouldn't be appearing against each other
in court.
Oliver Townshend
Oliver Townshend
> 'License' section you don't understand?
What part of copyright don't you understand?
Oliver Townshend
Adem
>There's at least one precedent in Australia, Trumpet vs Ozemail, that says
>it does.
I am not sure it is at all relevant here. I have quickly glanced over
your link and it seems to be a distribution license problem.
I.e.
OzEMail did not have a license to distribute the thing. That's probably
why they went back to ask the author. And then they ignored the authors
conditions and then lost the case.
Whereas, in the case of TNT Components, license to distribute the
software (in either modified or unmodified, in source or binary form)
has been granted.
In what way is your example relevant to this one?
Oliver Townshend
> why they went back to ask the author. And then they ignored the authors
> conditions and then lost the case.
Trumpet Winsock was shareware, so they had a right to redistribute it
unmodified. But Trumpet specifically revoked the licence (mainly because
they were trying to change their licence as is happening here).
> Whereas, in the case of TNT Components, license to distribute the
> software (in either modified or unmodified, in source or binary form)
> has been granted.
>
> In what way is your example relevant to this one?
Same sort of situation, although Ozemail went a lot further and modified the
software before redistributing it, thus ensuring they would lose the case.
Oliver Townshend
Dennis Landi
>
> Personally I'd like to see the Delphi community stand behind TMS, and to
> support them in their efforts to build on top of where I left off. They
> have already done a great job.
I think the best thing for TMS to do with your components is Innovate,
Update, Extend and Improve. Then it won't matter if others are giving away
lesser quality, out-of-date versions. Instead, they'll serve as
advertisements for the official version. Seems to work in the MONO versus
.NET scenario for MS...
-d
Femi Fadayomi
Since you are a lawyer, can you enlighten me about he following:
1. Is there a contract involved here?
2. Why can't Troy legally revoke the license?
Thanks,
Femi
--
Adem
>Trumpet Winsock was shareware, so they had a right to redistribute
>it unmodified. But Trumpet specifically revoked the licence (mainly
>because they were trying to change their licence as is happening
>here).
I could see that it was shareware. But shareware does not automatically
mean anyone gets a (re)distribution rights. Some authors do want their
own site to be the only point of supply --for whatever reason.
So, unless I get to see the licese terms in question, I can not be
sure that particular case is relevant here.
>>In what way is your example relevant to this one?
>
>Same sort of situation, although Ozemail went a lot further
>and modified the software before redistributing it, thus ensuring
>they would lose the case.
Well.. not quite the same situation though, is it?
They might have lost the case (or Trumpet might have won) because:
a) OzEMail did not have license to distribute the thing at all.
b) OzEMail did not have license to modify binaries.
c) OzEMail did not have license to distribute modified binaries.
Take your pick --none is relevant here, IMO.
OK. Let's get back to why I am not at all amused by this:
If anyone could turn around and retroactively revoke licenses, then
a lot of stand to be screwed..
Say, Jedi project (or FastCode people or simply FastMM or whatever)
simply turned around and said we no more had any rights to use their
software..
Worse still, suppose there was not commercial alternative --or
continuity-- either..
Would that be at all acceptable?
No, IMO not.
This is why I am concerned with this turn of events --not because
it cost money to buy the continuity.
Hell, I spend more than twice that E30 driving to my office...
It's not the money.
It's the precedent of what's been attempted.
Oliver Townshend
>
> a) OzEMail did not have license to distribute the thing at all.
> b) OzEMail did not have license to modify binaries.
> c) OzEMail did not have license to distribute modified binaries.
Ozemail lost because they had their rights revoked and c) distributed
modified binaries (twice).
> Take your pick --none is relevant here, IMO.
But in law it isn't what happens in a particular case given a set of facts
that is interesting, but the precedents you can draw from it. And in this
case its because they had their rights revoked.
> OK. Let's get back to why I am not at all amused by this:
>
> If anyone could turn around and retroactively revoke licenses, then
> a lot of stand to be screwed..
Yes. But it depends on the particular licence at the time. For instance,
the GPL is a much more complete licence than either the TNT licence (which
gives a right to distribute subject to acknowlding copyright) or the Trumpet
licence (which was just "This is Shareware").
Moral: Read the licence before using the software.
Oliver Townshend
Erik Berry
> Sure it does. He has not, at any time, given up his rights to the
> ownership of the code. As the owner, he can change his mind about how
> his code can be used. Effective when he sold the rights, redistributing
> old copies of the code, despite what it may say in the header, is a
> violation of his copyright. No matter what else, HE wrote the code, and
> HE is the SOLE person who gets to decide what happens with the code that
> HE wrote. You, as a user of HIS code, are subject to the decision HE
> makes about HIS code. Just because you don't like it doesn't change that.
Owning a full copyright to something doesn't mean you can revoke/chnage
previously granted licenses. It does give you the right to change the
license terms for _future_ transactions, though. The license/conditions you
completed the transaction under are the ones that are in force. I think the
one lawyer here and every previous case I've seen where this has come up in
the open source world agrees on that point. OpenSSH is one case where a
license couldn't be retroactively changed, MySQL has had similar issues come
up, as well as Interbase/Firebird, etc. Imagine what a mess we would be in
if software company X could retroactively chance the license you agreed to
when downloading/installing Product Y months/years ago. If they could
arbitrarily change the terms of the license, they could force arbitrary
things upon you - that you to stop using it, that you must upgrade, disallow
installing on new hardware, that you can only use their software when wearing
a red clown nose, etc.
> As an aside, using non-open-source components in an open source project
> is just plain stupid.
TNT was open source, by any reasonable definition. It allowed free
redistribution (and modifications) to the code and that is the distilled
essence of open source. I think your statement is to absolute anyway or
anyone that creates a Delphi open source app using the VCL is stupid. In
general, I agree tie-ins between open source and proprietary software are not
ideal, but sometimes it is the only reasonable option.
One can argue on a moral basis that it "just seems wrong" to redistribute the
old source when the author says he prefers you wouldn't, and I might
sympathize a little, but that has no legal weight. I don't use/distribute
these components, so I have no stake in this, but I do hope the commercial
version thrives. Those that continue to use the free version can decide to
hack on it on their own under the old license, or buy the new product. Some
open source projects may not be able to upgrade, and I see no problems with
that either.
Erik
Uffe Kousgaard
news:4630...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> What part of copyright don't you understand?
So you think the words in the license section has no meaning?
They seem to be very clear to everyone else.
d r
> What part of copyright don't you understand?
Oliver, nobody here is denying Troy's copyright over the components, we
are arguing here over licensing terms given to the version(s) already in
circulation. You could say, and I would agree with you, that his
copyright was violated if somebody removed for example following line
from license file "Copyright (c) 2002-2007, Troy Wolbrink
(www.tntware.com)", or in any other way try to misrepresent the
authorship of the TNT Unicode Components. As version 2.3.0 is
redistributed unaltered I'm at loss to see how his copyright was
violated?!?!
Others have put it much better than I could do, please see Erik Berry's
post for example.
I personally do not want to see precedent here that copyright owner can
revoke and change license terms at any time retro actively. Otherwise I
would drop GExperts, Apache, Firefox, Thunderbird and started saving for
their commercial counterparts. As I said Erik expressed it very nicely.
Don't forget that a lot of goodwill went into these component from both
sides - Troy and Delphi community, latter providing testing, feedback
and bug fixes on the basis that components are open source/free. I doubt
that they would gain so much support and recognition in Delphi community
if they were closed source.
Dragan
Kjell Rilbe
> I think it would be much nicer of him (or of TMS) to provide
> copies of TNT Unicode (a snapshot of just before the licensing
> terms changed) on his/their site(s).
That's exactly what I've been thinking all along: If TMS has confidence
in their work with the new version of these controls, they would gain a
lot by publishing the last free versions on their site, under the
original license.
It would help the open source community keep using the controls,
although they would miss out on bugfixes and new features. But any user
of such open source projects might buy a new commercial version from
TMS and benefit from the improvements, assuming they are compatible for
the puposes of the open source projects in question.
By helping the open source community in this manner, TMS would gain a
good reputation and the controls would keep being used in a lot of
places, making good PR for TMS.
Kjell
Disclaimer: I am not even close to being a lawyer or anything of that
kind. And since I am from Sweden I wouldn't really have a clue about
what for example US law says.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kjell Rilbe
Home: +46 8 7610734
Cell: +46 733 442464
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If there's a price for bein' me, that's one I'll have to pay"
Aaron Tippin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
jrg2k
Reading this:
> License
> Redistribution and use in binary forms, with or without modification,
> are permitted. Redistribution and use in source forms, with or
> without modification, are permitted provided that the redistributions
> of source code retain the above copyright.
(which is a BSD-style license), it's clear that anybody can
redistribute the TNT controls, even adding more restrictions (like
releasing under the GPL, LGPL, or even sell them at $4000 each), as
long as they respect the restrictions in the above quoted license,
which *only* required that they don't remove the copyright notice.
Unless this obligation is breached, somebody could even open a project
in sourceforge.net for community maintenance.
Copyright law gives you the right to control the copying of your works,
and you donated such right to the commnunity on the conditions specified
by the license. You can of course release *new* versions of the
controls under a different license (as indeed has already been done).
Regards,
jr.
--- posted by geoForum on http://delphi.newswhat.com
Kjell Rilbe
> If they could arbitrarily change the terms of the
> license, they could force arbitrary things upon you - ...
> that you can only use their software when wearing a red clown nose, etc.
ROTFL :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Kjell
Oliver Townshend
> copyright was violated?!?!
He has revoked people's right to continuing distributing it. That's his
right as copyright owner.
> I personally do not want to see precedent here that copyright owner can
> revoke and change license terms at any time retro actively. Otherwise I
> would drop GExperts, Apache, Firefox, Thunderbird and started saving for
> their commercial counterparts. As I said Erik expressed it very nicely.
Read their licences then and make a decision based on that.
Oliver Townshend
d r
> Read their licences then and make a decision based on that.
Huh, WTF?
I (and the others) read the license of TNT Unicode Components (version
2.3.0 and earlier) and made the decision on reading and understanding of
that license, aren't you contradicting yourself?
jrg2k
> are permitted. Redistribution and use in source forms, with or
> without modification, are permitted provided that the redistributions
> of source code retain the above copyright.
I forgot to mention, if you had given away redistribution rights but no
modification rights, anybody interested in maintaining a project based
on the controls would have had to distribute the controls *unmodified*
along with some kind of patching package, to be run by the user. Since
you kindly donated also modification rights, the redistributed/forked
package can include updates, additional features, etc. Thus, it was an
open-source release, at least as open-source is generally understood.
Oliver Townshend
> 2.3.0 and earlier) and made the decision on reading and understanding of
> that license, aren't you contradicting yourself?
Well you and I aren't lawyers, so my position would be that I wouldn't treat
anything as open source and free for continued use unless it has a
recongised open source licnece like GPL, MGPL or BSD licence. Not just a
cut down version.
Oliver Townshend
Uffe Kousgaard
>
> He has revoked people's right to continuing distributing it. That's his
> right as copyright owner.
Oliver, please ask some of your law firm customers (www.codelegal.com.au) if
they agree with you. I think you will be surprised.
Regards
Uffe
Henrick Hellström
Perhaps it should be pointed out that the TNT license isn't a "cut down
version" of the BSD style license. The BSD style license is actually
even shorter.
Matthew Jones
> author of the code that has provided so much benefit to so many is
> shameful. I'm surprised that more people don't feel the same way.
Clarifying the terms of the old license isn't working against the author
at all. It is just clarifying the situation. FWIW, I've never adopted the
TNT components but now they are in the TMS stable I'll give them a look.
/Matthew Jones/
Matthew Jones
> advertisements for the official version.
Good point. Let's all put this behind us, and then look forward to the
postings like:
"How can I do Unicode in my app?"
"You need the TNT components, an old version is available free or you can
pay a measly 30 Euro for the much better version from TMS."
/Matthew Jones/
Thorsten Engler [NexusDB]
> > As version 2.3.0 is redistributed unaltered I'm at loss to see how
> > his copyright was violated?!?!
>
> He has revoked people's right to continuing distributing it. That's
> his right as copyright owner.
It just doesn't work that way.
Yes, he is the copyright owner. That's without question. But the moment
he released his source under that license he transfered certain rights
(under certain conditions) to the recipient of the source. One of the
rights granted is the right to redistribute the source in modified or
unmodified form under the condition that the copyright statement is
retained which implies that the recipient has been granted the right to
in turn grant others these rights.
While it's not specifcally spelled out in the license violation of the
attached condition should under most jurisdictions nullify the granted
rights.
But given that the license defines no means for later revokation of the
granted rights, and given that Troy, as the copyright owner at the time
of publication, was legally entitled to grant these rights, under most
(if not all) jurisdictions, there is just no other way then
non-compliance for him to revoke these rights.
--
Oliver Townshend
> if they agree with you. I think you will be surprised.
I see lawyers argue all the time. For instance in Trumpet vs Ozemail where
a similar point was discussed. And I was an expert witness.
Oliver Townshend
Adem
>I forgot to mention, if you had given away redistribution rights but
>no modification rights, anybody interested in maintaining a project
>based on the controls would have had to distribute the controls
>unmodified along with some kind of patching package, to be run by
>the user.
O boy.. does this bring back oainful memories about the qmail (Linux)
idiocy where you had to hunt the whole net for this or the other
patch (taht usually conflicted with one another) just because its
author wouldn't let the damn thing to be forked nor would he be
kind enough to pull all those discrete patches into the main distro.
No dir, thank you very much. I have had my fun days. A plenty.
Next time I encounter such travesty I will run like hell!
Arthur Hoornweg
> Sure it does. He has not, at any time, given up his rights to the
> ownership of the code. As the owner, he can change his mind about how
> his code can be used. Effective when he sold the rights, redistributing
> old copies of the code, despite what it may say in the header, is a
> violation of his copyright.
IANAL either, but I think this is false. It makes no sense at all.
--
Arthur Hoornweg
(In order to reply per e-mail, please just remove the ".net"
from my e-mail address. Leave the rest of the address intact
including the "antispam" part. I had to take this measure to
counteract unsollicited mail.)
Arthur Hoornweg
> Also, I'm not aware of anyone who is saying anything about "unfair
> mistreatment" or "tyranny" or "gall" for TMS to now be charging for the
> product. I think it's great that the product is commercial now, and that
> it's likely to be further developed and supported.
I think it is more a case of TMS finally realizing they had a vital
part missing in their libraries (unicode). TMS make a very nice
dbgrid, but for us it turned out to be unusable given the limited
unicode support.
Arthur Hoornweg
> If lawyers were always right, they wouldn't be appearing against each
> other in court.
No, they would be duelling with their opponent's lawyer...
Troy Wolbrink
> Do you still see me objecting to him charging for it?
Correction: I'm not charging for it. TMS is.
--Troy
blur...@gmail.com
> > Until he gives it away.
>
> Wrong.
>
> > Tim, if you are not a lawyer, please don't confuse others. Your private
> > (and quite misleading) opinion should be kept private until you ask your
> > IP lawyer for advise.
>
> I believe that same advice should be applied to you and everyone else in
> this thread. Please don't chastise me, or judge my opinion by your own
> just-as-flawed ignorance. Just because I prefaced my comments and you didn't
> doesn't make you correct.
>
> He did NOT give away ownership of the code. He did NOT make an "open source"
> license. He retains full ownership and control over what is done with the
> code.
>
> The reality here is that no one here is going to do shit about this. There
> will be no law suits, there will be no lawyers consulted and there will be
> no resolution. All there will be is a bunch of whiners who want something
> for nothing doing whatever they want without reprecusion. That's life, I
> guess.
>
> --
> Tim Sullivan
> Unlimited Intelligence Limitedhttp://www.uil.net
I think Eugene Mayevski is a lawyer :D
George
> Correction: I'm not charging for it. TMS is.
Yes you did. You *sold* it for real money to TMS.
George
George
1. Troy sells something that was free to TMS.
2. TMS repackages Troy's work and starts selling it.
Wow !
30-120 euros for what ? Support ? What kind of support needs someone for a
"unicoded" TLabel control that just WORKS ?
get a life.
Troy Wolbrink
>
> Yes you did. You *sold* it for real money to TMS.
>
Not to split hairs, but "charging" is in the present tense. "sold" is past
tense.
--Troy
Troy Wolbrink
> 30-120 euros for what ? Support ? What kind of support needs someone
Ever heard the phrase "No good deed goes unpunished"? It's true! :^)
Since releasing the controls in 2002, there have been 2,693 messages posted
on my TntWare Unicode Controls tech support newsgroup. And this doesn't
count the roughly 2,000 emails I've received about the controls. In
response, there have been hundreds of bug fixes and enhancements. And then
there's the minor issue (sarcasm intended) of keeping it simultaneously
compatible with both old and new, sometimes unreleased, versions and various
editions of Delphi. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. It's been a
great experience, and I've gotten to know some great Delphi developers from
all around the world. But please don't belittle the value of what it costs
to support a library like this.
Thanks,
Troy
Tim Sullivan
Sure it does, it makes a lot of sense, you're simply not trying to see an
alternate point of view. People revoke licenses of all kinds all the time. A
license exists at the whims of the issuer (in this case, the copyright
holder), and unless they've given away their rights to revoke the license
(that is, making the software "open source") the right to revoke the license
remains with the copyright holder.
I'm not saying I'm right, I'm merely saying that this point of view is a
valid one, and that barring a court ruling this issue won't be sorted. Given
the ambiguous nature of the current situation, I think that commercial
vendors should drop 30 euro and buy the TMS version and open source projects
should run far away and find an alternative solution, because the ambiguity
muddys the legality of their own software.
George
I think that the 2.3.0 version is complete (after your support).
TMS has nothing more to offer that could justify the requested price.
George.
Troy Wolbrink
> open source projects should run far away and find an alternative solution,
> because the ambiguity muddys the legality of their own software.
I don't agree with this aspect. Many open source project are based on the
VCL, and the assumption is made that anyone who wants to particiapte needs
to get a copy of Delphi. If an open source project was based on TMS
Unicode, the assumption should also be made that anyone who wants to
participate needs to get a copy of TMS Unicode (for a nominal fee per
developer if I might add). The only way to be "pure" would be to jump to
Linux and have an entirely open source stack to build on.
--Troy
George
You can check this by yourself.
Go to TMS order page and you will find YOUR version (actually) beeing sold
for 30-120 euro. Please tell me what TMS version has more to offer for that
price compared to your free version.
It is a joke.
Troy Wolbrink
> I think that the 2.3.0 version is complete (after your support).
Thanks for that kind statements. It was indeed very stable in the
components it had, but it was not complete.
> TMS has nothing more to offer that could justify the requested price.
That statement makes me laugh! TMS acquired the controls exactly one month
ago today. In one month they have already added enough to justify the price
for any user of the old TNT controls. They have added: TTntFindDialog,
TTntReplaceDialog, TTntTaskDialog, TTntDBLookupComboBox, TTntLabeledEdit,
TTntInifile and TTntTrayIcon! I personally have not purchased a TMS license
yet, maybe it's a "programmer's pride" issue, but I didn't originally see
the need. But with these new components I'm starting to reconsider this
myself. On the one hand, I'm considering moving my projects to VCL.NET, but
that would take time, and I'd love to sink my teeth into TTntTaskDialog and
some of the others TMS has made available right away. Just last week I was
in Thailand demonstrating my software to a new client. I was a little
embarresed by the fact that I was using TFindDialog and TReplaceDialog in my
app, and he hadn't set the "Locale for non-Unicode Apps" to Thai on his
computer. With TTntFindDialog and TTntReplaceDialog in my app I would not
have any problems and the demo would have been flawless.
--Troy
Femi Fadayomi
> valid one, and that barring a court ruling this issue won't be sorted.
IANAL either, but I spent a lot of nights at Holiday Inn Express.
1. I don't believe there is a contract.
2. I can't see the QUID PRO QUO.
3. Troy can revoke the license anytime.
The question left in my opinion is can he win in a court of law? Most of the
participants of this thread are saying no. I think otherwise, without a QUID
PRO QUO, there is not much left to argue about.
>Given the ambiguous nature of the current situation, I think that
>commercial vendors should drop 30 euro and buy the TMS version and open
>source projects should run far away and find an alternative solution,
>because the ambiguity muddys the legality of their own software.
>
This is where I am completely baffled, how can those that are making money
out of Troy's effort, find it alarming that he may want some compensation
for his efforts?
Femi
Troy Wolbrink
> Go to TMS order page and you will find YOUR version (actually) beeing sold
> for 30-120 euro. Please tell me what TMS version has more to offer for
> that price compared to your free version.
They took my final version of the source and enhanced it with an installer
that is compatible with Delphi 2007 for Vista before releasing their
v1.0.0.0. Then a few weeks later they released v1.1.0.0 with 5 new
components. Then a few weeks later they released v1.2.0.0 with 2 new
components and one fix.
> It is a joke.
Enough with this kind of talk!
Tom Corey
> I think that actively working
> against the original author of the code that has provided so much
> benefit to so many is shameful. I'm surprised that more people don't
> feel the same way.
I don't see how discussing what the license actually means equates to
working against the author. From what I've seen, most everyone is
supportive of the author, and the new owner. Discussing the license and
its impact on people who use or want to use it, doesn't change the
license.
Tom Corey
> This is where I am completely baffled, how can those that are making
> money out of Troy's effort, find it alarming that he may want some
> compensation for his efforts?
You're misrepresenting pretty much everyone with that false assertion.
No one is alarmed or upset that the current copyright owner might want
to be paid. On the contrary, I've seen several posts agreeing that's
perfectly reasonable, especially if they add capabilities to it.
The discussion is about what the existing license means. Nothing more,
nothing less.
Tim Sullivan
> VCL, and the assumption is made that anyone who wants to particiapte needs
> to get a copy of Delphi. If an open source project was based on TMS
> Unicode, the assumption should also be made that anyone who wants to
> participate needs to get a copy of TMS Unicode (for a nominal fee per
> developer if I might add). The only way to be "pure" would be to jump to
> Linux and have an entirely open source stack to build on.
At this time, there is no legal ambiguity about the license of the VCL.
There could be, in the future, but for now there isn't.
For good or for bad, there currently *is* a legal ambuguity over the
deployment licence of pre-TMS versions of the TNT stuff. As such, any open
source project would do well to avoid the components (or, as you say,
license them, something I think is a great idea but I'm not convinced that
many open source projects will fork over the cash).
As for purity, I guess it depends on the flavour of open source. I don't
think the VCL can be used for applications that are under GPL. Other
licenses, perhaps MPL, might be usable.
Qian Xu, IA/INF2001
>
> I think Eugene Mayevski is a lawyer :D
>
Do you think a lawyer will read newsgroup especially a delphi group?
--
Qian Xu
Adem
Troy,
>Ever heard the phrase "No good deed goes unpunished"?
>It's true! :^)
I have used TNT Components in a couple of personal projects and I
have always appreciated your efforts and skill. And, i'd like to
thank you for that --if that means anything.
What went on the verge of turning that gratitude sour was the fact
that you said/implied that --for all legal intents and purposes--
TNT Components should vanish from the face of the earth.
Not only is it like someone asking their gift back just because
he/she felt like it, it would also place a lot of people in a
very awkward situation.
Never mind the legal aspects of whether you could do that, it
is --IMHO- ethically inconsiderate too.
You didn't offer any meaningful way out for those people who
use your components in non-commercial applications, nor those
people who could be in educational or other not-for-profit
institutions where getting the funds to buy anything may be
more hardwork than we know.
It also seems you didnot confer (privately) with any of those
great developers you got to know from all around the world
whether what you want to do might receive sympathic response
or otherwise.
All this --IMHO-- caused all these seemingly thankless
responses.
my 0.02+
Erik Berry
> Sure it does, it makes a lot of sense, you're simply not trying to see
> an alternate point of view. People revoke licenses of all kinds all the
> time. A license exists at the whims of the issuer (in this case, the
> copyright holder), and unless they've given away their rights to revoke
> the license (that is, making the software "open source") the right to
> revoke the license remains with the copyright holder.
The reason lawyers are so important and many licenses are so detailed today
is that exact text of a license really matters. Once a license is agreed to,
it is final (except in edge cases where the person was forced into the
license, was not mentally competent, was mislead, etc.).
I'd like to see an example in the wild, a legal case, or a law where a
license not explicitly described as revocable/changeable can be
revoked/changed after the transaction for anything but non-compliance with
the license. The old TNT license explicitly allows redistribution and
modifications, so those actions do not count as non-compliance. I see no
legal ambiguity in the old license. There are several open source disputes
where there were attempts or parties wanting to either retroactively change
licenses or limit distribution allowed by a license, but I've never seen one
where those retroactive changes/restrictions were ruled legal or allowed.
When you say that there is an ambiguity, is this because you think:
- The license and legal framework do not fully govern the terms of use for
the source. If so, what legally governs the terms of use?
- Is license itself is ambiguous? If so, what part of the old license
quoted here or the legal framework indicates the license is retroactively
revocable/changeable or doesn't allow redistribution?
Erik
Troy Wolbrink
> I have used TNT Components in a couple of personal projects and I
> have always appreciated your efforts and skill. And, i'd like to
> thank you for that --if that means anything.
I appreciate this feedback.
> What went on the verge of turning that gratitude sour was the fact
> that you said/implied that --for all legal intents and purposes--
> TNT Components should vanish from the face of the earth.
> You didn't offer any meaningful way out for those people who
> use your components in non-commercial applications...
TMS has clearly stated that you may continue using your old copy of TNT ...
forever. And for the record, I'm not revoking any rights to redistribute.
I simply sold all the rights to TMS, and they have (understandably) revoked
the "redistribution" component of the old license. Whether or not they have
legal grounds, I can't state with certainty. I was just letting people know
that I sold the rights to TMS. Like I said in the original post, "I am not
a lawyer". My appeal to the community is not based on my personal
involvement, but rather on my strong belief in intellectual property rights.
I might not understand all the nuances of the law, and for that I'm sorry.
But I am being sincere.
When I first let the community know that I was done working on them, I never
actually expected a commercial entity to be interested in buying them from
me. But when Bruno from TMS contacted me with their vision of what they
would do, it was clear to me that this is where they should go. I sold TNT
to TMS specifically so that they would not "vanish from the face of the
earth". And for that I have no regrets.
BTW: I work for a non-profit, and I'd have no hesitation to purchase a
library for such a small price if it helps me to be more effective in my
job. I'd pay for it out of my own pocket if I had to.
--Troy
goo...@hadlington.com
Hi everyone,
Check the URL 'http://www.uil.net' quoted in this post and the NOTE at
bottom of the home page. Its illuminating.
I was at the point of using the old 2.3.0 controls and now I wont be.
Also WONT be buying the commercial versions of the controls as some
posts in this thread smack of people spreading FUD over the legality
of continuing to use the controls to drive sales of the new commercial
versions. In that situation I make big steps in opposite direction. It
also means I wouldn't even consider looking at any other products of
the current owner as a result.
If commerical vendors wonder why people are drifting over to all OSS
its just this type of thing thats helping to fuel it.
goo...@hadlington.com
Check URL quoted in this post and the Note at bottom of the home page.
Its illuminating shall we say :-)
goo...@hadlington.com
Look at the above URL and check note on Home page. Its illuminating :-)
goo...@hadlington.com
goo...@hadlington.com
Check the NOTE at bottom of the Website URL . its illuminating.
DerekUK
Check www.uil.net and the note at bottom of homepage very illuminating.
DerekUK
Tom Corey
> I think the whole story is a joke.
> 1. Troy sells something that was free to TMS.
> 2. TMS repackages Troy's work and starts selling it.
Both transactions are perfectly reasonable. Troy owned the code, and
was well within his rights to sell it. TMS, as the new owner, is well
within their rights to charge money for it.
> 30-120 euros for what ? Support ? What kind of support needs
> someone for a "unicoded" TLabel control that just WORKS ?
If you don't think it is worth the money, you are strongly encouraged
to not buy it. Meanwhile, TMS apparently isn't merely selling the
existing version, but updating and enhancing it. Sounds to me like it's
worth money. Heck, it has probably been worth money all along.
> get a life.
Excellent advice. You might consider it yourself.
Tim Sullivan
> license not explicitly described as revocable/changeable can be
> revoked/changed after the transaction for anything but non-compliance with
> the license.
I agree completely. I have no idea which way it would go, but I'd say it's
50/50.
> When you say that there is an ambiguity, is this because you think:
The owner of the copyright has revoked the license. Others are claiming he
does not have the right to do so. At the moment, both points of view have
validity and good arguments can be made on both sides. Unless something gets
settled in court, it won't get resolved. Since I doubt anyone has the time,
money or inclination to settle this, the actual legal status of the old,
non-TMS issued code is ambiguous. While some people may feel that's fine, I
myself would prefer to either license or avoid the code in question.
I encourage license, because I think that TMS is a great company and that
the TNT controls are excellent.
DerekUK
I encourage people not to use any version now wether the free or
commerical versions for new projects. That way there is no issue. In
the case of this post check http://www.uil.net and the Note at
bottom . it is illuminating shall we say.
PS sorry to everyone about multiple posts earlier. Updates here were
slow and I thought I had posting troubles so tryed several times.
Oliver Townshend
> commerical versions for new projects. That way there is no issue. In
> the case of this post check http://www.uil.net and the Note at
> bottom . it is illuminating shall we say.
Tim had a commercial product that he sold to another firm, i.e. TMS. His
stuff wasn't open source.
Oliver Townshend
Tim Sullivan
> commerical versions for new projects. That way there is no issue. In
> the case of this post check http://www.uil.net and the Note at
> bottom . it is illuminating shall we say.
Sorry, it's not like it's any secret that I have open sourced two libraries
(the original UIL Plugin System, and the UIL Time Framework, now both part
of JEDI) and sold off three commercial components (The UIL Security System,
The UIL Merge Wizard and the UIL Plugin Framework, now all sold by TMS), so
you're not really the master investigator that you seem to think you are.
I've been an open supporter and critic of most of the major vendors,
including TMS, DevExpress, Raize, Extended Systems and more, and I believe
my history speaks for itself. However, if you've got something you want to
say about me, please do so in an upfront way and don't pussy foot around it.
So, what have you done for the Delphi community?
I encourage people to go with what the original author and current copyright
holder has requested: continue to use the pre-TMS version as you will, but
don't redistribute it any further. If you want to, purchase the already
improved version of the components from TMS. There is no legal ambiguity
with either of those things. The point currently in contention is whether
people can freely deploy the pre-TMS version of the components.
If you've got an opinion, please feel free to voice it, rather than make
vague implications about my character.
DerekUK
> > I encourage people not to use any version now wether the free or
> > commerical versions for new projects. That way there is no issue. In
> > bottom . it is illuminating shall we say.
>
> Sorry, it's not like it's any secret that I have open sourced two libraries
> (the original UIL Plugin System, and the UIL Time Framework, now both part
> of JEDI) and sold off three commercial components (The UIL Security System,
> The UIL Merge Wizard and the UIL Plugin Framework, now all sold by TMS), so
> you're not really the master investigator that you seem to think you are.
> I've been an open supporter and critic of most of the major vendors,
> including TMS, DevExpress, Raize, Extended Systems and more, and I believe
> my history speaks for itself. However, if you've got something you want to
> say about me, please do so in an upfront way and don't pussy foot around it.
>
> So, what have you done for the Delphi community?
>
> I encourage people to go with what the original author and current copyright
> holder has requested: continue to use the pre-TMS version as you will, but
> don't redistribute it any further. If you want to, purchase the already
> improved version of the components from TMS. There is no legal ambiguity
> with either of those things. The point currently in contention is whether
> people can freely deploy the pre-TMS version of the components.
>
> If you've got an opinion, please feel free to voice it, rather than make
> vague implications about my character.
>
> --
> Tim Sullivan
> Unlimited Intelligence Limitedhttp://www.uil.net
1) I Never said I was a master investigator or it was any secret was
just pointing out to anyone that might not realise.
2) What has my Involvement in the Delphi community got to do with
anything ? Nothing basically. I WAS a recent Delphi
convert from an extensive C++/Java background both Windows and
Linux/Unix. But frankly some of the things that have
been happening in this community recently Im heading back there.
3) I dont really see what the contention is about deploying the pre
commerical version of the software. The license for 2.3.0 to
all intents and purposes appears to be a BSD style license. I dont
see how the redistrubution of the 'free'
version can be retrospectively curtailed like this. As I posted
above some of the posts here give impression of spreading
FUD to get people to Buy the commercial version . In that
situation my advice to anyone is just avoid using the controls of
any version and be wary of any product of the company concerned.
If attempts to retrospecitvely change licenses in this
way are the Modus Operandi Thanks but no thanks . Especially in
light of the Thread on Non-technical
Dated arround 27th March about this which makes a good read.
Jim
Hi Troy,
> they should go. I sold TNT to TMS specifically so that they would
> not "vanish from the face of the earth".
That sure would have been easier ;^)
> BTW: I work for a non-profit, and I'd have no hesitation to purchase
> a library for such a small price if it helps me to be more effective
> in my job. I'd pay for it out of my own pocket if I had to.
Unfortunately it is those of use who also put in as much time in free
components as you did are also left out to dry if we can't continue to
redistribute the old TNT.
Jim
--
www.mustangpeak.net
DerekUK
This is precisely the problem I see with retrospective attempts to
alter the license in this way and my reason for posting above that the
best
policy for new projects is to steer clear of the components in any
form 'free' or commercial versions. I Whats to stop subsequent goal
post moving of this type in future ( Leaving aside whether it
enforceable or not ) ?
I was also surprised to find a comment about there was never an
intention with the 'free' versions of the controls to have 'wholesale
redistribution' . If that is the case why do I seem to remember them
appearing on Magazine cover disks and many websites in the past ?
Troy Wolbrink
> I was also surprised to find a comment about there was never an
> intention with the 'free' versions of the controls to have 'wholesale
> redistribution' . If that is the case why do I seem to remember them
> appearing on Magazine cover disks and many websites in the past ?
Wow! I sincerely wasn't aware of this, although if this is true I'd love to
know more details about it. I recall that PC Plus from the UK mentioned the
TNT Controls at one time on their website. Might they have included them in
their resource CD or mentioned them in print? How cool if they did! :^)
(PC Plus is one of my favorite magazines.)
--Troy