[fpc-pascal] Notice: Possible copyright infringements in FPC code base

[Michael Van Canneyt]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, John Stoneham wrote:

> On Jan 16, 2008 7:18 AM, Michael Van Canneyt <michael at freepascal.org> wrote:
> > Not too much implication, for you, normally:
> >
> > 1. If you have a licensed copy of Delphi, you can ignore it:
> >    you are allowed to use this source code.
> >
> >    (We do not have the right to distribute it, but that is our problem,
> >     which we must solve, and which we are solving)
> >
> > 2. If you don't have a licensed copy, you can still use the GPLed version of
> >    CLX which is freely downloadable from Sourceforge: it is the same code as
> >    the Delphi code. It does mean that your application needs to be GPLed.
> >    If you don't distribute them, this is not a problem at all...
> >
> > So the only case when you could have problems is when both the following
> > conditions are true:
> > a) you don't have a registered Delphi
> > b) you use FPC/Lazarus to create and distribute closed-source commercial software.
> >
> > In this case, then the remedy is to wait for the next release which has
> > the clean-room code, and simply recompile your application.
> 
> Actually, none of this is necessary if the "questionable code" is part
> of a library routine which is unused and unlinked by the developer,
> since the resulting program will not contain the code in question.
> However, if it's part of the compiler itself and not part of the
> runtime, that raises another question (this whole issue is getting
> rather interesting from a legal standpoint). Let's say that Corel has
> infringed upon Microsoft's copyright by including some code from MS
> Word in WordPerfect. Clearly, Corel is the infringing party. But what
> does that mean for a user of WordPerfect? Does that mean an author
> working on a novel is also violating Microsoft's copyright by using
> WordPerfect? I think almost everyone would agree that he's not. But
> what if he *knows* that the version of WordPerfect he's using contains
> copyright violations? Now it starts to get a little murkier, but I
> think the answer is still "no".
> 
> A compiler is not very different conceptually from a word processor.
> Should the result be any different? Again, I don't think so. If the
> word processor, when generating a document, injects into it some
> predefined text supplied with the program as text snippets, and those
> snippets contain text which is actually copyrighted by someone else,
> then the author needs to make sure those infringing snippets are not
> included in the completed work he distributes. The same analogy
> applies here.

In each case, the 'suspect' code is not used in the compiler at all.

> 
> > It is also under the assumption that Codegear actually can prove that we
> > have been infringing on copyright.
> 
> Here's an interesting question: Is any of the code at issue also in
> CLX? If so, I would strongly argue that there is no infringement
> possible since Borland GPLed that code over half a decade ago (it
> doesn't matter legally that they may have also included it in the
> closed-licensed VCL -- once it's GPLed, it's GPLed for good).

The suspect routines are mostly in the classes unit. 
In the component streaming system, to be exact. This code is of course
available in the GPL-ed CLX... Note also that the CLX is under some kind
of dual license: GPL or the Borland license. Which license is used depends
on the software engineer, if I understand correctly.

If someone takes this point of view:
That would effectively mean that any application built with it is also
GPL-ed. The Free Pascal license explicitly also allows to create 
closed-source applications.

Regardless of this, we do not wish to be suspected of using Borland's 
code, and therefor decided to play it safe and recode the routines 
anyway. I cannot stress this enough.

Michael.