Rugxulo wrote:
On 8/13/10, Frank Heckenbach ih8mj@fjf.gnu.de wrote:
Rugxulo wrote:
You're right, good point, BUT copyright was never meant to be extended indefinitely.
Not indefinitely, but for a long time. Even the minimum terms of the Berne Convention are "almost forever", especially WRT software.
Software is different than movies or books or whatever. It shouldn't have 70+ years of copyright.
Yes, it shouldn't. But it does.
And there are a lot of crazy laws. You can't please everybody, even if you try. It's a minefield. I'm not saying you shouldn't try, but pretending that a law (standard) matters over what most people think (Borland) is naive at best.
Can't follow you here. This isn't about Borland, but P5.
Well, I was saying that Borland had obviously won the popularity war with their Pascal dialect. So it doesn't matter if the law (standard) says something is mandatory (schema), nobody cares anyways (sadly?). Popular opinion really does matter more than the law. It's only when the law is heavily enforced that you have to comply.
These are some really twisted arguments you make. (To be honest, I'm starting to think you're trolling. I'll give you the benefit of doubt -- so far.) First, law <> standard (in many ways). Second, any argument based on Borland "winning", isn't going to go well with me. (If you do a popularity contest, you should note that Pascal as a whole has lost heavily, IMHO to a large extent due to the fragmentation and unclean extensions by Borland.) Third, in civilized countries, most people usually obey the law even where it's not directly enforced. Fourth, as I explained often enough, in this case it's possible that it would be heavily enforced.
(Too many laws to obey, and how can you if they don't tell you?)
Yes, there are many laws, and we're probably not aware of all of them. But this discussion is about one specific law which we are aware of. So?
But anyway, the law matters because you can be sued about it. You cannot be (successfully) sued based on public opinion only -- thankfully, or would you like to return to medieval witch trials?
You can be sued for anything. Doesn't mean it will hold up in court, but if you just want to annoy someone, you can do lots of things. The law is blind, it doesn't prevent someone from being a bastard.
It does in some way. Not every lawsuit goes to court. Look up frivolous.
What happens when the compiler for the copyrighted work is no longer available? What happens when the OS it ran on is no longer available?
You port it to another compiler or OS. That's why having source code available is important, especially in the long run.
Yes, I know this, I'm just saying, there are lots of things to worry about (if you let yourself) !!
So you're saying because there are lots of things to worry about, don't worry? That's absurd. The opposite is true. I showed you how FS developers have addressed the concerns you raised.
BTW, many people have rescinded licenses for various things without any good reason. And they scream and yell how they are allowed to push people around. It's disgusting. "Oops, sorry, end users, we don't care about you." Big surprise. It's not the first time nor the last.
Again, this can't happen with most free software licenses.
They'd still find a way. Don't forget that GPLv3 is preferred since it closes up some of the holes left by GPLv2 (tivoization). Yet v2 is still heavily preferred (and not always with the "or later" clause).
Again, what does this have to do with this case??? If we got a license for P5, we'd have the compiler in source form, not in Tivoized form. Sorry, just citing random issues is not an argument, you have to show how they relate to the question at hand.
So yes, I do indeed care, but often times it's worrying over nothing.
I think that's skewed comparisons.
- In your examples, the maximum damage can't be much higher than the face value of the items, i.e. minimal.
Legally, maybe, but it could cause a rift with people, and that (intangible) is more painful than (limited) money. Well, in my case, I literally can't lose anything there, but still ... the point is valid. ;-)
Which point??? Because you may or may not get into personal trouble with your relatives over random stuff means exactly what WRT software licenses???
- If it's about software, the simplest case would be programs you just use a few times and are not invested in any way, e.g. games. Though already then, legal damages and lawyer fees can be much higher than the actual price.
"If you can't afford an attorney, one will be provided for you." (Or, if I was really crazy, I could represent myself, heh. But you always lose when you do that.)
Look up court costs (especially if you lose).
- If it's a compiler you use to build your own programs, and you don't have a license, the copyright holder can force you to stop using it (besides demanding damages). In this case you have to port your code to another compiler, at least, immediately (apart from damages).
The point is they really waited WAY too long to complain about P4 and these other things.
No, they didn't. Look up term limits in the relevant laws, not your personal opinion.
Sure, you can get mad because a lady uploads a video of her baby dancing with Prince music in the background, but why??? It's a little crazy. Seriously, it's ridiculous how tightly some people hold on to the idea of copyright, legalities, etc.
Yes, it is, I fully agree. It's also crazy that people drive with dangerous machines through cities. But do I ignore these facts and walk across the road with closed eyes?
But it's really really counterproductive to sue or harass anyone. It's MUCH more sensible (but rare) to ask nicely, to help, to be patient, to presume good will on both sides, to cooperate, sponsor, etc.
I agree. But you don't have to convince us, but the copyright holders -- whether ETHZ or individual authors. Explain your point to them and get a (legally valid, i.e. usually written) agreement from them.
Frank