On 06.01.2017 16:44, Lars wrote: > On Tue, January 3, 2017 6:10 pm, Snorkl e wrote: >> They might with a change of ownership, who knows these days, but the >> fact they did use it in the past would not look good for any litigation >> from some bottom feeder. > > The fact that they use FPC, means they likely reverse engineer FPC and > apply their own hacks to their own compiler for multiple targets based on > FPC engineering.. > > i.e. they don't even need to reverse engineer FPC, they just have to dip > their eyes into the source code... And woops, there comes the problem: > Delphi is likely stealing from FPC too as their eyes have seen what cannot > be undone... they've peered into the FPC source code guaranteed.. I bet. > > i.e. when they decide to target multiple platforms they have a nice demo > to look into which already does it: fpc. > > Now I am not trying to insinuate anything here, but "it goes both ways" > > As Michael Van C. once said, why isn't Borland also practicing clean room? > who is to say, since their development model is closed source, that their > compiler has no violations in it, that rip from FPC? With FPC the code is > open so you can tell. With delphi, it's closed development, so you cannot > peer into their compiler sources and check to see if there are violations.
Ehm... Delphi's compiler is written in C++, not Delphi as far as we know. Also their NEXTGEN compiler is utilizing LLVM, something we won't purely do. Regards, Sven _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal