Hi,
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. I mean, in theory, that'd be great, software that works forever, but in reality it never does, too many incompatibilties, too much of a moving target. Software depreciates very quickly, too quickly even (for my tastes). At least books don't need a specialized machine just to read 'em. (CD, CD-G, CD-ROM, DVD, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, DivX, Beta, VHS, etc) What good is being copyrighted if nobody can use it?? Better to let them use it while they can than kill it until nobody has any need for it.
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. (Too many laws to obey, and how can you if they don't tell you?)
Yeah yeah, if you don't like the law or standard, change it. But that's harder than it sounds.
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.
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) !!
What happens when the cpu it runs on is no longer mass produced?
If it's assembler code, you port it (again, requires the source code, and takes some work) or run it in an emulator (which is actually a common thing to do now for many of the 1980's home computers). If it's a high-level language, you just compile it on a new target (possibly with small adaptations).
Yeah, emulators, which are great but often buggy and slow. So that pretty can be less than ideal, esp. since sharing files between host OS is often hard (or impossible).
BTW, Oracle is now suing Google over Android's Dalvik (Java-inspired?) VM for patent etc. violations. :-((
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).
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. ;-)
- 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.)
- 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. And my (admittedly lame) examples were similarly not my fault and had no obvious solution (and nobody cared but me).
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. (Why would a photographer want copyright on a picture of my dead grandfather for 70+ years??? And the copy shop refuses to copy it. Uh, hello? Silly enough? It especially makes me mad because it's literally just a press of a button to take a photo, no work involved!)
- If you actually base your own project on the other one (as was implied here), the copyright holder can basically bring down your project if you don't have a proper license. And for a big project (such as GPC), this means many man-years and/or equivalent amounts of money, i.e. enormous damages (regardless of the "value" of the code used), apart from damaged reputation etc.
So the danger is much higher than you seem to imagine.
I don't really advocate being careless, just don't suggest we stress ourselves beyond normal capacity over silly things. Sure, software is a big business, and there's big money to be made (blech). 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.
Maybe your argument is: We can't win anyway, so let's do anything. While big companies often try to manipulate laws to their advantage, it's not true that they always get everything. See e.g. http://gpl-violations.org/ for some cases where the GPL was successfully enforced in court, also against some bigger companies.
No, big companies do indeed get the law swayed towards their advantage, even when it makes no sense. They hold on too tightly, and they lobby for changes in laws just to suit their bottom line. I know you know this. They really go too far. It's hard not to get mad at them because they really do trample all over us. (BTW, jailbreaking an iPod is considered legal now, according to Library of Congress.)