Hi,
On 8/13/10, Frank Heckenbach ih8mj@fjf.gnu.de wrote:
Rugxulo wrote:
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.)
writeln('*sigh*');
It is Pascal-related, and this is the GPC mailing list. Surely that alone means I'm not, even if you disagree.
First, law <> standard (in many ways).
Sorry, I know it was a weak argument. I'm just saying, some laws are really really really stupid. And some standards are really really really ignored (Algol-68, anyone?). Both are meant to regulate things.
Second, any argument based on Borland "winning", isn't going to go well with me.
I like ISO 7185 (!), from what tiny bit I've programmed in Pascal. I haven't messed with 10206 really, but it seems good also. Not perfect, but nothing is.
This is why I, first and foremost, wrote my Befunge-93 interpreter in standard / classic Pascal. I wanted something portable, not just some ad hoc implementation that only works on one or two compilers.
(I was already aware of DOS TP7 and also a Win3x Delphi versions by Stepan Roh. But they were Borland-specific. Plus they didn't like ALPHABOX.BEF for some reason. His Win3x version was buggy on WinXP [toolbar], and his DOS one had the RTE200 bug, no LFNs, no *nix LF support, and neither would probably run on Win64. Oh, and it was partially in Czech! But FPC compiled it fine, though, out of the box (!), fixing most of that. Yet I still wrote my own! GPC was my preferred compiler! Borland style *only* wasn't "acceptable" to me.)
But of all the (tens of) compilers I found on the Internet, most of them only tried to support Borland-style (e.g. FPC, VP21, Vector). Only a very few claim to support ISO 7185, even fewer ISO 10206. So it's fairly obvious (to me) that ISO 7185 / 10206 aren't first choice for most Pascal users. (Hence I couldn't rely on using get/put and f^.) Please don't take it as an offense. I know that GPC supports standards, and that's indeed a benefit, not a drawback. But I have to be realistic! In the end my program is more portable than "just" standard or "just" Borland! It supports both! I didn't let their restrictions define me. (At worst I would've just written two separate versions.)
(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.)
Borland was only popular initially because it was cheap and fast. It wasn't that bad, but I know it wasn't perfect. At least (now) we have GPC and FPC (et al.) to fill in the big gaps Borland couldn't.
I don't really think Pascal has "lost", but it is less popular than previously (dunno why).
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.
You know what I mean. I'm not trying to be a revolutionary. I'm just saying, some laws are really dumb and shouldn't (or can't) be obeyed. Obviously we should all be good citizens, but it depends on where you live (argh)! So nobody can agree, which makes me feel less than pleased with the "perfect" legal system. Plus my main point was that there are so many laws that nobody can know for sure what's legal or not, esp. when it keeps changing. Hence nobody (well, nobody with a life) really obsesses too deeply about it. Some people have more fun legislating to others than actually obeying it themselves. I'd rather watch paint dry than sit in court or even think about the legal system.
(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?
Does Brazil have the same laws? Do they care as much about copyright as other countries? (Doubt it.) What about Japan? China? Or are we just assuming everyone follows the U.S.? I didn't say it wasn't a minefield, and I didn't say copyright / piracy / patents / whatever wasn't enforced, just that it's tricky to get things right.
Maybe it's simpler for me to not care than you, I dunno. My life isn't so complex that I have to worry. I'm just saying, don't worry as much about the letter of the law as much as trying to do good work (which *should* be the spirit of all laws).
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.
In the U.K. I think you have to pay the winner's legal fees if you are convicted of slandering them. But most other places it's not like that. Are you really going to consult 190+ lawyers for every country in the world? (Doubt it.)
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.
I'm well aware of free software's accomplishments. I meant that the world is a mess, most people "don't care" about anything, laws vary, and that you can only do your best, not please everyone else. If you try to please everyone, you will fail. Try your best to follow the law, sure, but don't worry about every little nitpicky detail as if your life depends on it (it doesn't).
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.
The point was you generalized on free software licenses as if they solved everything, and they don't. GPLv3 (which GPC uses) explicitly covered some holes left by GPLv2. So don't tell me "most free software protects you" when they don't. There are still ways for people to screw you. (Most people still use GPLv2, esp. Linux. Now I don't personally think it's that big a deal, but some people, sheesh ....) We can't even get FSF and Debian and OSI to agree on what constitutes "free" (see OpenWatcom's license debate)! *BSD surely hate GPLv3 (why?), so they won't help. So that's yet another minefield to traverse.
Laws? Obey or be sued. Licenses? Be compatible or be ignored. People? Be nice or be hated. Compilers? Support dialects and various OSes or be unused.
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???
That (obviously) people are more important than legalities, laws, software, licenses, etc. They can annoy you more than any technical problem you encounter. Having friends is much more productive than arguing or hating someone or being depressed. So it's better not to burn any bridges. Money comes and goes, that's very temporary. It's not worth worrying about.
Besides, again, who enforces the law? Who is the law meant to protect? PEOPLE! The law is not a living being. So who do you listen to, the law of 1972 or 2010 or of the people who actually stand to lose / gain from what you are doing? (And we have judges to interpret the law, so it matters more what they say than what we personally think it means or even what it traditionally used to mean!)
Here, I think I heard that nobody (EDIT: in the state legislature!) gives a rat's ass about what the (early 1900s) state constitution says, esp. if they consider it "racist". But it takes forever to rewrite, so they haven't yet (I think). Should we obey the racist law or use better judgment? And clearly wasting time to rewrite it isn't a huge priority or they'd have already done so. So please don't tell me that the law is so perfect, it's not.
"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).
I do not support illegal activities unless the law is unjust. But I will also not waste my entire life reading a hallway full of legal books either. If they change the law, that's their problem, not mine. I just don't care enough about most things to fight over them. I am not a lawyer and have no interest in that.
Anyways, Scott said Pemberton was well aware of his efforts but stopped responding to his emails. (He has small kids, so he's probably also "just busy".) So who else to contact? And why bother if Frank "the GPC Boss" doesn't care to use P4/P5? So it will sit in legal limbo for another millenium because nobody cares. I'm curious, even diligent at times, but even I can't pretend to follow dead cases about things that nobody cares about. We have to draw the line somewhere.
If it makes you feel better, do nothing, but please don't flame me just because I'm a realist and not a legal pedant. (I'm sorry to have intruded upon your conversation, but sometimes I think my opinion is more insightful than it really is. Doh.)
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.
You don't think 40 years is long enough to figure out whether they want to appropriate P4 or not??? Like Scott said, they've probably all retired!! (I'm only 31.)
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?
I didn't say walk blindly, but sometimes the damn walk signal won't change (broken). Sometimes the street markers wear out. Sometimes signs fall down. Sometimes driving laws change. You can't blindly accept them and assume you're safe. You have to do what's best for you (and others), not try to please an old crusty law (or worse, a law that is a moving target).
I would rather technically "jaywalk" across a street when no cars are coming than try to cross during heavy traffic just because the "Walk" sign says so. Just being "legal" doesn't protect you either.
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.
I already said that would be wise. But if you can't get a response, what do you do? Give up or act reasonably and go ahead anyways? (But it's moot, you already said you don't care about P4/P5.)