I'll mostly restrict my reply to pointing out the flaws in your arguments. Even if you have a valid point (which I doubt), it's up to you to build a *coherent* argument, instead of spreading random remarks and hoping that some of them will stick.
Rugxulo wrote:
I don't WANT to ignore or break laws, only some REALLY shouldn't or else CAN'T be obeyed without making someone's life 10 x more difficult for NO benefit.
We're not talking about "some" laws, but one specific one (possible copyright of P4), and this one can be easily obeyed (by not using it).
In fact, from what I can tell, Nageli is somehow involved as author in "pint.p", but he isn't listed in there. So even that is an omission that nobody felt important to include.
If so, this makes it even more problematic to use, rather than less. Again, arguing against your own point.
BTW, *I know you dislike unrelated comparisons but* [...] I know that's not proof, [...]
Enough said.
"based on existing law" ... for what, U.S. or Germany or ... ?
I answered this already. (Switzerland, if ETHZ.)
Unless you can prove that Pemberton is lying, I think it's safe to say that P4 is "public domain" (of some sort or similar)!
No, burden of proof is on those who claim it's PD.
The point was that it's nothing huge enough that they can act like it took them 20 years to write and is worth millions of dollars.
Where in copyright law does it say it needs to take them 20 years to write and be worth millions of dollars in order to have copyright?
Where do you draw the line????
Indeed, there is no sharp line (like often in law). But still there are things that are clearly here and some that are clearly there. Everyone agrees that a few thousand lines of code are clearly copyrighteable, and your "20 years" and "millions of dollars" are just a strawman.
Atari saying the yellow dot from Adventure is trademarked????
Why do you bring up trademarks now? (You know that copyright and trademarks are completely different laws, do you?)
I suppose this alludes to my questioning of Pemberton's claim. But again, this is a bad example, since as Florian wrote, the statement is in the sources, whereas in the P4 source there is no such statement, as I pointed out.
FPC clearly didn't make it very obvious what exact GPL they were using, probably because nobody cared!! To most people, free software / open source / GPL is probably "good enough" (all sounds the same).
I haven't seen a single project that uses the GPL, but doesn't state which version(s). Give me once concrete example or retreat your absurd claim!
We didn't invade their house and pilfer their silverware, just attempting to use what is already available (and without any mention of license anywhere except Pemberton's claim that it's PD, which for some odd reason is horribly dubious because he's such a devious liar, naturally).
Who said he was a liar? Are you misquoting me now?
If you don't think it's legally usable, then you are saying "it's not P.D.", which means you either thinks he's heavily incorrect or a liar.
Mistaken <> lying.
<sarcasm> Are you saying I misquoted you? Because I didn't, you liar! <sarcasm>
I *asked* where you got the thing about lying from.
Now you accuse me of lying, even if in a "<sarcasm>" tag.
By which you acknowledge that you had the copyright [...]
I only WISH it wasn't copyrightable. And yes, I'm aware that some dummy somewhere decided (for us!) that every little trivial thing is copyrightable. So I explicitly say, "I don't care", in case some jackass whines later.
As I said, you know you had the copyright and actively released it. Thanks for confirming me.
*You* published it *with* a PD notice. That's more than what we know about P4 so far.
We know (from PUG newsletters) that P4 was heavily spread around. There was a cost, but it was apparently from shipping and tape expenses. There was no mention about licenses.
As I said, they didn't publish it with a PD notice. Thanks for confirming me.
So who is it that doesn't care? Why is GPC 4.x so bugged? Why is it so hard? Why would a rewrite be reasonable at all then?
I addressed all this in my original article which started the discussion.
Which is really dumb, BTW, that an author / copyright holder can't do what they want with their own work just because some weird law disagrees.
I agree, but this is really the least problem. For practical purposes, it's basically the same as PD, and it doesn't take much more work for the author to do it.
Yeah, but finding people from 40 years ago is hard!!
Non sequitur. (The previous point was about how it's bad that authors in some countries can't release to PD if they wanted to, but could have used a free license instead. Your reply is how hard it is for users to find them after a long time -- which is independent of the question at hand; it would be equally hard to find them if you need a PD statement from them as for a FS statement.)
To cut this pointless discussion short, remember that we've all long agreed that we don't like the current laws.
Not really, you seemed to defend the law more than anybody.
Respecting the law <> liking the law.
why would I ignore or break a perfectly wonderful law that changes every time I turn around? That's the definition of perfect ("finished")!
Again you're arguing definitions of terms you brought up yourself. (The nice is you can read this whole discussion in the archive for proof. I didn't use the word "perfect" a single time in this copyright subthread -- you did so many times.) So keep arguing against yourself.
we've made it very clear that the project is important enough (to us
... And to GCC and RMS, obviously! <evil grin>
Irrelevant. (Noone claimed it would bring GCC or the FSF down.)
and to some of its users)
Thought you didn't think it had any??
Then read what I actually wrote instead of fantasizing. I explicitly addressed the users and asked them about new features, supporting its development etc.
that we won't risk it by breaking the laws.
Which have served you oh so well over the years. (not)
Irrelevant. Obeying laws isn't based on reciprocity.
But then if copyright disappeared too soon, the GPL would too, which would be bad for "free software", no?
If copyright disappeared, all software would be free software. Yes, the "copyleft" clause would also disappear which some would dislike. But that's a hypothetical scenario and irrelevant to the discussion.
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry in Wind, Sand and Stars
(OMG, a copyrighted quotation!
Yes, so? You know there are laws and predecent which make (proper) citation legal. That doesn't imply that arbitrary use of copyrighted work is legel.
Frank