I think it's time to take this particular argument offline.
--------------------------| John L. Ries | Salford Systems | Phone: (619)543-8880 x107 | or (435)867-8885 | --------------------------|
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010, Rugxulo wrote:
Hi again,
On 8/18/10, Frank Heckenbach ih8mj@fjf.gnu.de wrote:
Rugxulo wrote:
I don't WANT to ignore or break laws, only some REALLY shouldn't or else CAN'T be obeyed without making someone's life 10 x more difficult for NO benefit.
We're not talking about "some" laws, but one specific one (possible copyright of P4), and this one can be easily obeyed (by not using it).
Almost all laws can be obeyed by doing nothing. Don't like driving laws? Don't drive. Don't like income tax? Don't work. Don't like GPL? Don't release anything. Don't like software patents? Don't use computers.
I hope you see the futility of such a defeatist attitude.
In fact, from what I can tell, Nageli is somehow involved as author in "pint.p", but he isn't listed in there. So even that is an omission that nobody felt important to include.
If so, this makes it even more problematic to use, rather than less. Again, arguing against your own point.
No, the point was they weren't nitpicking to death. They didn't even necessarily worry about some details ("additional copyright holder"??). Hence license is probably even further from their minds.
"based on existing law" ... for what, U.S. or Germany or ... ?
I answered this already. (Switzerland, if ETHZ.)
Do other countries agree to respect Swiss law and vice versa?
(Apparently Polanski's 33-year-old warrant was valid enough for Swiss authorities to arrest him, but they must've changed their minds because they didn't extradite him to the U.S. like originally suggested. He's now a "free man!" I hate bringing up politics, but it just proves again that nobody can agree on anything!)
Atari saying the yellow dot from Adventure is trademarked????
Why do you bring up trademarks now? (You know that copyright and trademarks are completely different laws, do you?)
Because people are crazy and do crazy things, and the laws sometimes only help them to do that.
FPC clearly didn't make it very obvious what exact GPL they were using, probably because nobody cared!! To most people, free software / open source / GPL is probably "good enough" (all sounds the same).
I haven't seen a single project that uses the GPL, but doesn't state which version(s). Give me once concrete example or retreat your absurd claim!
"License
The packages and runtime library come under a modified Library GNU Public License to allow the use of static libraries when creating applications. The compiler source itself comes under the GNU General Public License. The sources for both the compiler and runtime library are available; the complete compiler is written in Pascal."
Notice that Florian has already said "it's mentioned in the source". My point was that it didn't seem to be mentioned in any of the other obvious places.
As I said, you know you had the copyright and actively released it. Thanks for confirming me.
I did not care one whit about legalities with it. The fact that I do or don't have exclusive copyright is legally moot. I didn't care at all, and I only "released it" via my own weak power in case someone was too stubborn or stupid to care otherwise.
We know (from PUG newsletters) that P4 was heavily spread around. There was a cost, but it was apparently from shipping and tape expenses. There was no mention about licenses.
As I said, they didn't publish it with a PD notice. Thanks for confirming me.
They also didn't say, "All hail Berne!" or "Copyright, don't distribute, pay us big monies for 70+ years, kthxbai!" So why are we not asking them explicitly what they want NOW instead of catering to a law that is irrelevant? I care more about concrete people than abstract law.
To cut this pointless discussion short, remember that we've all long agreed that we don't like the current laws.
Not really, you seemed to defend the law more than anybody.
Respecting the law <> liking the law.
If someone sued GPC for patent breach tomorrow, would you respect it? I doubt it. Nor should you, even if the "law" says you were wrong!
that we won't risk it by breaking the laws.
Which have served you oh so well over the years. (not)
Irrelevant. Obeying laws isn't based on reciprocity.
When the slavemaster beats his slave, do you think the victim asks for more?? Not if he has any sanity left!
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry in Wind, Sand and Stars
(OMG, a copyrighted quotation!
Yes, so? You know there are laws and precedent which make (proper) citation legal. That doesn't imply that arbitrary use of copyrighted work is legal.
And you omitted to acknowledge that laws vary between countries. So it doesn't matter where it was written, only what the current law is in a particular place, for good or bad. This is why we cannot blindly kiss up to any laws because sometimes they don't even agree.
EDIT: Seems to matter more where it was published instead of originally written. Hence P4 would have probably been considered "published" in various countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_copyright_law#Public_domain
"Until the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the lack of a proper copyright notice would place an otherwise copyrightable work into the public domain, although for works published between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989, this could be prevented by registering the work with the Library of Congress within five years of publication. After March 1, 1989, an author's copyright in a work begins when it is fixed in a tangible form; neither publication nor registration is required, and a lack of a copyright notice does not place the work into the public domain."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary...
"Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic; it is prohibited to require formal registration (note however that when the United States joined the Convention in 1988, they continued to make statutory damages and attorney's fees only available for registered works)"
"An author is normally not entitled a longer copyright abroad than at home, even if the laws abroad give a longer term. This is commonly known as "the rule of the shorter term". Not all countries have accepted this rule."