Gpc August 2010

gpc@gnu.de

32 participants
32 discussions

Inefficiency of `mod'
by Emil Jerabek 25 Oct '10

25 Oct '10

Hi, during some debugging I noticed that GPC generates very hairy code for the `mod' operator with signed arguments. A closer look revealed that the code contains a lot of branching on conditions which can be determined on compile time, and most surprisingly, the value of X mod Y is recomputed _twice_, if X is negative. (I've attached a commented assembler dump.) This may be partially a back-end problem (CSE?), but I feel there's something wrong in the relevant code in gpc-common.c (build_pascal_binary_op) as well. `exp1 mod exp2' gets translated into something like exp2 <= 0 ? error : exp1 >= 0 ? exp1 mod exp2 : ((-exp1) mod exp2) == 0 ? 0 : exp2 - (-exp1) mod exp2 This arranges that both arguments supplied to the "internal mod" are non-negative, but this information is not passed on -- the arguments are still declared as signed types, which apparently makes the back-end to produce the mess it does. I've done a little test: the following replacement for `mod', which differs from the built-in one essentially just by the type-casts to `Cardinal', inline operator xmod (X, Y: Integer) = Z: Integer; begin if Y <= 0 then RuntimeError (714); if X >= 0 then Z := Cardinal (X) mod Y else begin Z := Cardinal (-X) mod Y; if Z <> 0 then Z := Y - Z end end; indeed generates a better code, it measures about 15% faster for positive X and more than twice faster for negative X. YMMV. If this is possible in user code, it should work in the compiler internals as well :) The result type of the whole `mod' expression looks dubious too. IIUIC, `exp1 mod exp2' inherits the type of exp1. Now, the result of `mod' is guaranteed to be nonnegative and to fit in the type of exp2 (or more precisely, it is in 0 .. High (type of (exp2)) - 1), whereas it needn't have anything to do with the type of exp1: consider var X, Z: Integer; Y: LongInt; begin X := -8; Y := High (LongInt); Z := X mod Y { -> overflow } end Or am I missing something? Emil (BTW, where is fjf434c.pas?)

10 16

GPC linker errors - help needed
by Morton, John 28 Aug '10

28 Aug '10

As expected "glibc.i686" was preinstalled. I tried installing the i386 and x86_64 Red Hat rpms for "glibc-devel". Both rpms reported some unsatisfied dependencies. To make a long story short, in both cases the geometric growth of the dependency tree looks like it will eventually force all of the gcc C compiler to be installed. Maybe it's my non-C background but this hidden 3 file dependency (upon C) seems unreasonable given that all that gpc needs (see output below) is for those object files to be visible to the ld linker (assuming these object files are not dependent upon other files). Here is what I'd like to do: - Place copies of the 3 object files (crt1.o, crtl.o, ctrn.o) into their own folder or my application folder (or in "/usr/local/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.6" since that folder already contains other "crt" files such as "crtbegin.o") then set up the linker search path appropriately. - Separate the gpc compile and link steps (using makefiles for each phase). - Compile each of the 70+ source files that make up our application separately then pass a makefile (i.e. a list of the corresponding object files) to the linker. - The object files need to be persistent across compiles (not deleted after the link stage). - Be able to pass/specify additional libraries and object files to the linker I expect this should be relatively straightforward except for extracting the 3 object files. What is the easiest way of getting these files? Also what Linux based SDKs, meeting the above requirements, are being used with gpc? We already use a Linux version of the Rational/IBM Clearcase and Clearquest config management tools. Hopefully there are some Linux based SDKs that are compatible with these CM tools. Thanks --- The results of my latest compile attempt: [etms@lxstn08 dev]$ gpc -v -Wa,--32 hello.pas Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.6/specs Configured with: ../gcc-3.4.6/configure --enable-languages=pascal Thread model: posix gpc version 20070904, based on gcc-3.4.6 /usr/local/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.6/gpc1 -quiet -v hello.pas -quiet -dumpbase hello.pas -mtune=pentiumpro -auxbase hello -famtmpfile=/tmp/ccobDgZ4.gpa -version -o /tmp/cci6p6IZ.s GNU Pascal version 20070904, based on gcc-3.4.6 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) compiled by GNU C version 3.4.6. GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=100 --param ggc-min-heapsize=131072 GNU Pascal Compiler PreProcessor version 20070904, based on gcc-3.4.6 as -V -Qy --32 -o /tmp/ccWia0MX.o /tmp/cci6p6IZ.s GNU assembler version 2.17.50.0.6-12.el5 (x86_64-redhat-linux) using BFD version 2.17.50.0.6-12.el5 20061020 /usr/local/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.6/collect2 --eh-frame-hdr -m elf_i386 -dynamic-linker /lib/ld-linux.so.2 crt1.o crti.o /usr/local/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.6/crtbegin.o -L/usr/local/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.6 -L/usr/local/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.6/../../.. /tmp/ccWia0MX.o -lgpc -lm -lgcc -lgcc_eh -lc -lgcc -lgcc_eh /usr/local/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.6/crtend.o crtn.o /usr/bin/ld: crt1.o: No such file: No such file or directory collect2: ld returned 1 exit status [etms@lxstn08 dev]$ -----Original Message----- From: gpc-owner(a)gnu.de [mailto:gpc-owner@gnu.de] On Behalf Of Jonas Maebe Sent: August 25, 2010 03:40 PM To: GNU Pascal mailing list Subject: Re: GPC Assembler/linker errors - help needed On 25 Aug 2010, at 21:26, Morton, John wrote: > The gpc -v output shows that the compile now gets to the linker stage - > which complains that it cannot find crtl.o (and probably crt1.o and > crtn.o). These are part of the glibc-devel.i386 package. You have to install it on your compilation machines. It does not have to be installed on the staging/deployment machines (but glibc.i686 will have to be installed there). <<SNIP>> Jonas

3 2

Re: GPC Assembler/linker errors - help needed
by Morton, John 25 Aug '10

25 Aug '10

Thanks to the list (especially Jonas and Maurice) I've made progress. I am now able to log in as an unprivileged user ("etms") and run gpc (from "/home/etms/dev" which holds the "hello world" source code). The gpc -v output shows that the compile now gets to the linker stage - which complains that it cannot find crtl.o (and probably crti.o and crtn.o). Since none of these files are prefixed with a path it seems that the linker assumes they are in the current directory or are in the following default path (as one line - you can safely ignore the two "etms" folders): /usr/local/bin/:/usr/bin:/usr/X11R6/bin:/home/etms/bin: /opt/0V/bin:/opt/0V/bin/0pC:/etms/com:. I thought I saw the missing files somewhere but (assuming I've used "find" correctly) they aren't on my system at all. I did the search after deleting gpc-2.1 (from gnu-pascal.de) and then untarring (as root) "gcc-core-3.4.6.tar.tar" (from Brandeis) into it's default location (/usr/local/gcc-3.4.6). Shouldn't the 3.4.6 extraction have placed the 3 files in or under that directory? In theory all I need to do is update $PATH to include the appropriate directory - but which one is supposed to contain the three files? Or is there some other way (e.g. a command line option) to make the files visible to the linker? --- BTW, yum reports glibc 2.5-42 (i686 and x86_64 versions) and glibc-common 2.5-42 (x86_64 version only) but not libc (or libc-dev). My understanding is that this naming difference does not affect gpc (or anything else) on my Linux box. Finally, my thanks to Maurice for explaining the 64 bit situation. Luckily for me a 64 bit image is not (yet) an absolute requirement. Once I've got the 32 bit version working I'll be looking into building a 64 bit version from source code. John -----Original Message----- From: gpc-owner(a)gnu.de [mailto:gpc-owner@gnu.de] On Behalf Of Jonas Maebe Sent: August 25, 2010 07:11 AM To: GNU Pascal mailing list Subject: Re: GPC Assembler errors - help needed On 24 Aug 2010, at 23:35, Morton, John wrote: > Given that the "with gcc" binary tarballs are intended to be > stand-alone I am somewhat surprised that installing 32 bit > versions of "all dev packages (including libc-dev)" may be > needed. <<SNIP>> GPC programs by default use functionality from libc afaik, and hence to compile such programs you have to have the right libraries installed. <<SNIP>> > And am I correct in that a true 64-bit wide (x86_64) gpc Linux > compiler is not yet available? See Maurice' answer for this. > If so I expect I need to install the i686 version > of the "binutils" package. (yum only lists the x86_64 version and the > trace below implies that the 64 bit assembler is being used - this > seems to confirm my initial suspicion about a word length mismatch.) The x86-64 version of the assembler can also assemble 32 bit code. You just have to specify the correct parameter <<SNIP>> > [root@lxstn08 dev]# gpc -v -Wa -m32 hello.pas -Wa by itself does nothing. That parameter means "pass everything after the comma literally as option to the assembler". If you don't add anything, nothing will be passed. Use this instead: -Wa,--32 (including the comma, and no spaces in between) Jonas

4 4

Re: GPC Assembler errors - help needed
by Morton, John 25 Aug '10

25 Aug '10

Thanks to Jonas for the command line option suggestions. With them I am getting only 3 "push" (and no "pop") errors when I use the 2007 version of gpc (the 2002 version would not accept those options). Given that the "with gcc" binary tarballs are intended to be stand-alone I am somewhat surprised that installing 32 bit versions of "all dev packages (including libc-dev)" may be needed. And since I do not come from the C/Linux world (my background is primarily Fortan, Pascal, Ada) I'm not sure quite what is meant by "dev packages" - are we talking only libraries (libc-dev), tools (gcc, gpc, etc.) or something else? And which ones do I need, if any? (The issue may not be important, see below.) First: Am I correct in assuming that the "i686" versions are: a) 32-bit not 64-bit, and more importantly, b) NOT for the iTanium chip? And am I correct in that a true 64-bit wide (x86_64) gpc Linux compiler is not yet available? If so I expect I need to install the i686 version of the "binutils" package. (yum only lists the x86_64 version and the trace below implies that the 64 bit assembler is being used - this seems to confirm my initial suspicion about a word length mismatch.) Or, put another way, have I encountered a hidden assumption/pitfall that the "binary" stand-alone gpc packages expect binutils to always be 32-bits wide? BTW, The application has safety, security, configuration control and legal reasons that preclude the target machines from ever having anything installed that someone can use (e.g. compilers) to compromise the system. All development is done here, all that our field sites ever get are the binary executables in the form of an install package. And FYI, the entire program is: program hello; begin writeln('Hello, world!'); end; Compiling this (as root) using the -v option produced: [root@lxstn08 dev]# gpc -v -Wa -m32 hello.pas Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.6/specs Configured with: ../gcc-3.4.6/configure --enable-languages=pascal Thread model: posix gpc version 20070904, based on gcc-3.4.6 /usr/local/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.6/gpc1 -quiet -v hello.pas -quiet -dumpbase hello.pas -m32 -mtune=pentiumpro -auxbase hello -famtmpfile=/tmp/ccA5rIAp.gpa -Wa -version -o /tmp/ccALeZVE.s GNU Pascal version 20070904, based on gcc-3.4.6 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) compiled by GNU C version 3.4.6. GGC heuristics: --param ggc-min-expand=100 --param ggc-min-heapsize=131072 GNU Pascal Compiler PreProcessor version 20070904, based on gcc-3.4.6 as -V -Qy -o /tmp/ccKyOQdV.o /tmp/ccALeZVE.s GNU assembler version 2.17.50.0.6-12.el5 (x86_64-redhat-linux) using BFD version 2.17.50.0.6-12.el5 20061020 /tmp/ccALeZVE.s: Assembler messages: /tmp/ccALeZVE.s:9: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push' /tmp/ccALeZVE.s:37: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push' /tmp/ccALeZVE.s:51: Error: suffix or operands invalid for `push' [root@lxstn08 dev]# -----Original Message----- From: gpc-owner(a)gnu.de [mailto:gpc-owner@gnu.de] On Behalf Of Jonas Maebe Sent: August 24, 2010 12:01 PM To: GNU Pascal mailing list Subject: Re: GPC Assembler errors - help needed On 24 Aug 2010, at 17:47, Morton, John wrote: > However when I compile the simplest possible "hello world" on RHEL 5.4 > (a fedora variant) I always get the following assembler errors: > > Error: suffix or operands invalid for "push" > Error: suffix or operands invalid for "pop" > > Does anyone know what is causing these errors - and/or a fix for them? This means that GPC is generating 32 bit code, but that it is being assembled as [64] bit code. Try passing the "-m32" parameter to gp/gpc, and if that does not work, try -Wa,-m32. Note that you may have to install 32 bit versions of all dev packages (including libc-dev) that you need, unless those are installed by default. <<SNIP>> Jonas

3 2

GPC Assembler errors - help needed
by Morton, John 24 Aug '10

24 Aug '10

We need to port and upgrade an existing gpc application from 32 to 64 bit Linux. (If you fly anywhere within/to/from North America your flight is indirectly affected - airport delays, etc. - by this application.) Naturally 64 bit gpc is our first choice for this task. However when I compile the simplest possible "hello world" on RHEL 5.4 (a fedora variant) I always get the following assembler errors: Error: suffix or operands invalid for "push" Error: suffix or operands invalid for "pop" Does anyone know what is causing these errors - and/or a fix for them? Background: The development system does NOT have gcc installed (since gcc cannot be installed on the machines that will be running our application). On the dev system I installed the 2002 gpc BINARY (the "gpc-2.1-with-gcc.i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz" file) from the gnu-pascal.de/binary/ web page. I also tried the 20070904 Linux binary downloaded from brandeis.edu and got exactly the same results. Both downloads are i686 versions. Will these versions work on x68_64 Linux variants? If not what version of GPC should I be using for XEON based systems? 32-bit i586? Or - and as the very, very last resort - should I install gcc 3.4.6 and, heaven help me, attempt to compile GPC from source code? For more details (including results from "gpc -v") see my original post of 2008-10-12 entitled "RE: hello world causes Linux assembler errors". Thanks. John Morton NavCanada Technical Services Centre 280 Hunt Club Road, Ottawa, Ont, Canada K1V 1C1 (613) 248-7184, mortonj(a)navcanada.ca

3 3

Re: Quo vadis, GPC?
by samiam＠moorecad.com 18 Aug '10

18 Aug '10

12 31

How important is GPC for you?
by Peter Gerwinski 17 Aug '10

17 Aug '10

Hello, everyone! Some of you might still remember me. From about 1995 to 2001 I was the main GPC developer who implemented BP-style units, objects, and other things. I am still hosting the GPC web pages, this mailing list, etc. In 1998 I started my own company (G-N-U GmbH, http://www.g-n-u.de) doing business on free software. Our product range includes professional service for GNU Pascal, developing and customizing free software, and other services. For a while, GNU Pascal was a very important tool for my company, which justified that I invested a lot of time and money into it. However, over the years more and more customers addressed me with other needs. Meanwhile, GNU Pascal has reached a point where it needs full-time attention by an experienced GPC developer for several months. 1. The GCC backend is drifting away. Even if we just want to keep the existing language alive, without aiming at extensions, we need to transplant it onto a new, long-time stable backend. 2. It is very difficult for GPC enthusiasts to join the development team, since GPC is written in C rather than Pascal. Realistically, only Waldek, Frank, and/or myself can replace the GPC backend or rewrite the GPC frontend in Pascal without breaking the compiler. However all three of us face the necessity to make a living and thus cannot afford to do that large amount of work just for fun. It needs to be funded. I suggest to concentrate our forces on problem 2 and to rewrite the GPC frontend in Pascal without any backend. This gives you, Pascal programmers using GPC, the opportunity to watch the emerging new compiler and to become a GPC developer. Once this step is completed and the new compiler can represent a Pascal program in memory, the (hopefully enlarged) GPC development team has a free choice which backend(s?) to implement. If GNU Pascal is important for you, please consider to invest into its future by funding our work on GPC. You can contact me either on this list or in private email. Encrypted mail is welcome. Please find my public key at: http://www.peter.gerwinski.de/peter-gerwinski.public-key.asc Greetings, Peter -- Dr. rer. nat. Peter Gerwinski - http://www.peter.gerwinski.de G-N-U GmbH - First Class IT Services - http://www.g-n-u.de German pages for GNU & free software - http://www.gnu.de GNU Pascal - http://www.gnu-pascal.de

10 30

Re: Quo vadis, GPC?
by Steven D'Aprano 14 Aug '10

14 Aug '10

On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 04:17:58 pm Rugxulo wrote: > Hi, > > On 8/13/10, Steven D'Aprano <steve(a)pearwood.info> wrote: > > But we're not discussing what "should be", but what *is*, > > Even if we cared enough to find out (and apparently none of us do, or > don't know who to ask), the way it *is* could change yet again by the > time we finish GPC 2015. Yes. So what? You have to consider the laws as they are *now*, not how they might be some time in the indefinite future. > Besides, like I said, what if your country > doesn't approve of such laws? Then you won't be infringing your own country's laws, and you have nothing to worry about so long as you don't distribute the software in countries where it is infringing. [...] > > and the legal > > reality is that works like P5, even without a copyright notice, > > *are* copyrighted and will remain so for the foreseeable future. > > P5 is Scott's (heavy) modification. I don't know if it's enough to > constitute a whole "new" work or just another derivative. It's a derivative. > He says his work is PD. If he is infringing the P4 copyright, he doesn't have the right to write P5 in the first place, let alone to put it into the public domain. I don't equate copyright infringement with theft, but the analogy sometimes is useful. If you steal a diamond, and put it into a ring, and then give that ring away, the recipient is still receiving stolen goods. The excuse "But Scott said I could have it" is worthless. (The excuse "but I didn't know it was stolen" *might* help, but that's not always a given, and regardless, you don't get to keep the ring.) > And > Pemberton publishes his book online for free now (though he didn't > write P4 himself, right??). That should tell you something, even if > it's not legally airtight. No, it doesn't tell you anything. "You can download this book for free" is not the same as "You can write derivative works from this" or "you can re-distribute it". These are separate rights. > (Scott says several commercial compilers > used P4 as a basis. So apparently they didn't mind!!) Scott has no credibility in my mind. The legal theories he has been promoting in this thread are beyond ridiculous, e.g. the theory that works enter the public domain if you *know about* (not even approve of, or give permission to, but merely *know*) somebody -- anybody -- giving away copies for free. > > That means > > that using such a work puts you in legal jeopardy unless you get an > > explicit licence to use it. > > Right, but who to ask? I assume Pemberton, he should know better than > any of us. But if even he didn't write it, how can we be sure who > did? Ask the author if he is the copyright holder, and if so, what rights is he willing to give. -- Steven D'Aprano

3 2

Fwd: Quo vadis, GPC?
by Rugxulo 14 Aug '10

14 Aug '10

Argh, did it again, sent to wrong address. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Hi, On 8/13/10, Steven D'Aprano <steve_AT_pearwood_DOT_info> wrote: > > But we're not discussing what "should be", but what *is*, Even if we cared enough to find out (and apparently none of us do, or don't know who to ask), the way it *is* could change yet again by the time we finish GPC 2015. Besides, like I said, what if your country doesn't approve of such laws? It really pains me to hear that such and such is illegal (only) now or such and such a country doesn't follow this or that the U.S. is more strict, etc. Sure, if you think "all the world's U.S./Europe", it simplifies things, but it doesn't truly solve it. > and the legal > reality is that works like P5, even without a copyright notice, *are* > copyrighted and will remain so for the foreseeable future. P5 is Scott's (heavy) modification. I don't know if it's enough to constitute a whole "new" work or just another derivative. He says his work is PD. So we'd only have to worry about the "old" P4 bits. And Pemberton publishes his book online for free now (though he didn't write P4 himself, right??). That should tell you something, even if it's not legally airtight. (Scott says several commercial compilers used P4 as a basis. So apparently they didn't mind!!) > That means > that using such a work puts you in legal jeopardy unless you get an > explicit licence to use it. Right, but who to ask? I assume Pemberton, he should know better than any of us. But if even he didn't write it, how can we be sure who did? > If you, or somebody else, chooses to take that risk, then by all means > do so. Just do so with full understanding that you *are* infringing > copyright, and even if the author is happy to turn a blind eye, the > copyright holder might not be. I have no intention of screwing over anybody. But we're talking about something very small and old. Doesn't mean legal wars haven't been waged on similarly old or small stuff, but still ... it doesn't seem like it's THAT big a deal! > As for the rest of the debate... well, it's too long, too rambling, the > analogies you make are strange, and none of it really matters. Okay, so I ramble, and my analogies suck. Sue me. (Oh wait, that's not illegal.) ;-) > We're > not designing our perfect copyright law, nor are we documenting all the > crazy things people do. We're trying to help Frank decide what the > future of gpc should be. Clearly Scott (who is clearly intelligent) thinks P5 is worthwhile. Frank (also intelligent) would prefer to go another direction. That's his right. The point is that if we want a (classic / standard) Pascal written in Pascal, P5 would probably be a good starting point. Otherwise it might be better just to modify FPC to add an ISO 10206 mode.

1 0

Fwd: Quo vadis, GPC?
by Rugxulo 13 Aug '10

13 Aug '10

Bah, silly reply sent only via private mail (Gmail's fault). I'm not egotistical to expect this post to be worth anything, but here ya go anyways .... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rugxulo <rugxulo(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:55:07 -0500 Subject: Re: Quo vadis, GPC? To: Steven D'Aprano <steve(a)pearwood.info> Hi, On 8/12/10, Steven D'Aprano <steve(a)pearwood.info> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 02:26:41 am Rugxulo wrote: > >> It may be true that now all work is by default copyrighted. I'm not >> even sure you can PD software in some countries (ugh). But most >> important is the original author(s)' intent. > > That is possibly the LEAST important factor. What the original author > wants doesn't matter. What matters is what the current copyright holder > thinks, and what the law says. You're right, good point, BUT copyright was never meant to be extended indefinitely. 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. Some people support the law just because it's the law. Others follow what's good and decent. (Yes, I have an unrelated grudge, heh, stupid law changed much to my disadvantage in an extremely arbitrary way.) For example, I personally disagree that anybody but Terry Welch should've ever had the LZW patent, esp. since it was milked for twenty years AFTER he died!! Somebody please tell me how that's fair. (BTW, I hate software patents, just giving a lame example. If it doesn't help the guy who invented it, what good is it?) >> If they don't care, >> nobody else will. It's not worth arguing over their "rights" when >> they don't care anymore (or never did). > > That's simply not true. What happens when the author dies, and his heirs > inherit ownership of the copyrighted work? 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? What happens when it's no longer available for sale? What happens when the cpu it runs on is no longer mass produced? (See, I can worry too!) What happens if nobody remembers how to use it? What happens if everybody is too busy arguing legalities to appreciate the gift horse (and his mouth or whatever)? > What guarantee do you have > that they will be as easy-going with regard to copyright as the > original owner? Without a licence from the original author, this > becomes a clear and obvious case of infringement. I agree that a clear statement would be best. But if you can't get one, don't worry! No reason to assume the worst if you make a best effort to find out. 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. > What happens if the work was written under the auspices of a university, > which in 1972 was quite happy to let the author publish without a > copyright notice, but in 2010 discover that under the terms of their > employment contract at the time, they actually own the copyright, not > the author? Gross incompetence at best, flagrant misuse of copyright at worst. Lucky for them it wasn't written in some extinct language! (How many existing, popular Pascal compilers can build P4 out-of-the-box? If it's only GPC, then I would find that highly ironic.) > Or what happens if responsibility for enforcing copyright is separate > from the creative act? You can have a situation where the left hand is > explicitly encouraging people to use copyrighted material, while the > right hand is threatening those same people for infringement. Probably a good reason that companies shouldn't get exclusive rights to all their workers' efforts. (How that's even legal is beyond me. What they do in their free time should never be owned by anyone else.) > A recent > case, where the Discovery Channel's marketing department provided > promotional material to a fan website, and the legal department then > threatened them with a lawsuit and forced the owner to hand over > ownership of the domain: Trust me, I know of plenty of similarly crazy cases. I try not to infuriate myself with too much of that. People are crazy and will do crazy things whether it makes sense or not, legal or illegal, etc. The world is broken. > Don't imagine for one second that this is unique. I've even seen cases > where the marketing department of a record label uploaded videos to > YouTube, and the legal department then made DMCA claims and had their > own videos removed. (I can't find the link right now, sorry.) I've seen lots of crazy things too. Yes, big companies are crazy, and the crazy laws that cater to them are just as bad. > I note that you made a quip: > > You know what they say about "assume". > > and then immediately go on to advise us to assume that the absence of an > explicit prohibition against copying a work is the same as permission > to copy. That's terribly irresponsible. Under copyright law, it works > the other way: in the absence of explicit permission, you are legally > required to assume the prohibition stands. Like I said, it's moot here since nobody here (except Scott) is using P4 or P5 for a compiler. BUT, if we were, I would definitely ask Steve P. (and whoever else) for some kind of reassurance. If that failed to get any response, I would not worry and proceed as normal. It's kinda funny that this comes up today. I've had a certain book in my possession for months now because the person I returned it to (so they could return it to their mother, who loaned it to me) accidentally returned it back to me (!) and yet refused to retrieve it! Am I legally bound to return what I already returned, even at my own inconvenience? If so, how fast should I send it? I already told them twice about it, and they gave me the runaround. I finally just said, "Forget it, I'll mail it directly." Had to do it myself, they weren't responsible enough to do it! (Note that this book was only $15 new, which is very small claims at best. How much is a compiler [or more specifically, P4] worth to you??) I also had some really old baseball cards I assumed for YEARS belonged to a distant family member, but that person never stayed in contact with me. (I am much younger.) I never could even confirm whose they were, much less what to do with them. I finally shipped them off to the "nearest" other relative I could find. Legally, I have no idea what I would be required to do, but I did my best to be fair (even if it took like twenty years, and note that I'm only 31, heh). So yes, I do indeed care, but often times it's worrying over nothing. If nobody complains about something you ALREADY have in your possession, why would they complain once you do something with it? (Did Pemberton's publisher care to get the original authors' explicit permission? If they didn't care, why should we? For laughs???)

3 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

Gpc August 2010