Rugxulo wrote:
case Scott of wrong: correct(him); {gently}
And then get accused of misquoting and insulting.
I note he also choose to ignore my reply (http://www.gnu-pascal.de/crystal/gpc/en/mail14806.html), even though he apparently couldn't find any "insult" in it, even by his standards. I asked him by PM about it and waited a week; since he didn't reply, I have to assume
You know what they say about "assume". ;-)
Well, if you ask someone if he's going to reply, and he doesn't reply either to the mail in question or the second request, what are you going to do?
Most people indeed don't worry about copyright for trivial stuff including boiler plate like websites.
A compiler is trivial stuff? (Remember this was about P5; web sites were only mentioned as evidence for one thing or another.)
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. If they don't care, nobody else will.
But they can change their minds later, so basing a new project and investing a lot of time/money in it when the rights are not clear is still dangerous.
I think his main complaints against ISO 10206 ("extended") were that it was 1). more complicated than necessary, and 2). severely impacted performance despite the fact that "classic" ISO 7185 was meant to be reasonably efficient.
Not sure how this relates to the topic. We can certainly discuss the merits of 10206, preferably in a side-thread.
[1] I still wonder where you get this idea from that GNU doesn't allow paid work, or why you get so upset about the fact that some people do use it for paid work.
He may (?) have meant the tendency for GPL software to be free in freedom and beer. Sure, you can hire somebody, it can cost money, but a lot of times it doesn't.
But he wrote: "GNU wishes to produce software that cannot be legally used for paid work, or the basis for paid work."
Do you see a slight difference between the two versions?
Frank