Hi,
On 8/12/10, Frank Heckenbach ih8mj@fjf.gnu.de wrote:
(arguing snipped)
Sadly, it isn't the first time. I've seen it before, both on Usenet and in private mail exchanges. That's why discussions with Scott are often unproductive.
case Scott of wrong: correct(him); {gently} right: agree(him); otherwise dontWorry end;
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". ;-)
Most people indeed don't worry about copyright for trivial stuff including boiler plate like websites. Content of websites? Maybe a different story, but I'd be surprised if most people cared. (I know that's not what you want to hear, but it's true.) Anyways, see http://www.standardpascal.com/rights.html
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. It's not worth arguing over their "rights" when they don't care anymore (or never did). Even GPL violations are up to the copyright holder to enforce.
(note that I BARELY know about Scott and only online, so I'm probably getting this fairly wrong, definitely incomplete, but in fairness I felt I should mention ...)
He's probably just busy!!! It seems he always has a lot on his plate. (Well, definitely, he's getting married soon, last I heard.) He doesn't even directly make his living off of IP Pascal either. So that's yet another spare time project (although he uses it for his own contract work).
Now, I was blunt, and I don't expect him to reply anymore, so as a farewell remark, Scott, let me just say that I don't think you've helped your agenda to spread Standard Pascal by alienating the community that (in your words) "backed the standard when few others did".
His whole point of modifying P4 into P5 was to help the standards. And he's placing his work there also in the PD. And yes, he's using IP (and GPC also) to test because they support the standards. He just obviously thinks differently than you guys and does things in a different way.
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.
[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.