On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 04:17:58 pm Rugxulo wrote:
Hi,
On 8/13/10, Steven D'Aprano steve@pearwood.info wrote:
But we're not discussing what "should be", but what *is*,
Even if we cared enough to find out (and apparently none of us do, or don't know who to ask), the way it *is* could change yet again by the time we finish GPC 2015.
Yes. So what? You have to consider the laws as they are *now*, not how they might be some time in the indefinite future.
Besides, like I said, what if your country doesn't approve of such laws?
Then you won't be infringing your own country's laws, and you have nothing to worry about so long as you don't distribute the software in countries where it is infringing.
[...]
and the legal reality is that works like P5, even without a copyright notice, *are* copyrighted and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
P5 is Scott's (heavy) modification. I don't know if it's enough to constitute a whole "new" work or just another derivative.
It's a derivative.
He says his work is PD.
If he is infringing the P4 copyright, he doesn't have the right to write P5 in the first place, let alone to put it into the public domain.
I don't equate copyright infringement with theft, but the analogy sometimes is useful. If you steal a diamond, and put it into a ring, and then give that ring away, the recipient is still receiving stolen goods. The excuse "But Scott said I could have it" is worthless. (The excuse "but I didn't know it was stolen" *might* help, but that's not always a given, and regardless, you don't get to keep the ring.)
And Pemberton publishes his book online for free now (though he didn't write P4 himself, right??). That should tell you something, even if it's not legally airtight.
No, it doesn't tell you anything. "You can download this book for free" is not the same as "You can write derivative works from this" or "you can re-distribute it". These are separate rights.
(Scott says several commercial compilers used P4 as a basis. So apparently they didn't mind!!)
Scott has no credibility in my mind. The legal theories he has been promoting in this thread are beyond ridiculous, e.g. the theory that works enter the public domain if you *know about* (not even approve of, or give permission to, but merely *know*) somebody -- anybody -- giving away copies for free.
That means that using such a work puts you in legal jeopardy unless you get an explicit licence to use it.
Right, but who to ask? I assume Pemberton, he should know better than any of us. But if even he didn't write it, how can we be sure who did?
Ask the author if he is the copyright holder, and if so, what rights is he willing to give.
Hi,
On 8/14/10, Steven D'Aprano steve@pearwood.info wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010 04:17:58 pm Rugxulo wrote:
On 8/13/10, Steven D'Aprano steve@pearwood.info wrote:
But we're not discussing what "should be", but what *is*,
Even if we cared enough to find out (and apparently none of us do, or don't know who to ask), the way it *is* could change yet again by the time we finish GPC 2015.
Yes. So what? You have to consider the laws as they are *now*, not how they might be some time in the indefinite future.
Yes, fine, alright, I ADMIT THAT CURRENT LAWS ARE BINDING! (Sheesh.) But I can't help it, I'm cynical, laws change too much. (Even the U.S. Constitution hasn't been unchanged for more than 65 years in its whole existence!) :-(
It's just that P4 is really really old (for software), and I don't see any obvious copyright complaints. Frank clearly doesn't want "yet another subset". And P5 is indeed full ISO 7185 (can interpret itself), thanks to Scott. So it's a worthy tool, no?
Besides, like I said, what if your country doesn't approve of such laws?
Then you won't be infringing your own country's laws, and you have nothing to worry about so long as you don't distribute the software in countries where it is infringing.
Did you know that Sourceforge (hosted in the U.S.) is now forbidding that projects (by default) distribute to "banned" countries? (Syria, North Korea, Cuba, etc.)
But the GPL doesn't let me arbitrarily do that, I can't omit sharing with anybody who wants sources. So who shall I obey? (I guess you'll say, "If you can't distribute it legally to everyone, you can't distribute it at all.")
I didn't know I needed to care about (non-military) software to other countries!! Seems insane. Okay, it is insane. So why would I obey that (esp. if I'm not hurting anyone)??
P5 is Scott's (heavy) modification. I don't know if it's enough to constitute a whole "new" work or just another derivative.
It's a derivative.
Isn't there some rule that if it changes enough to be unrecognizable that it's no longer a derivative but a new work?
He says his work is PD.
If he is infringing the P4 copyright, he doesn't have the right to write P5 in the first place, let alone to put it into the public domain.
His work on it would still be his work, though, right? Sure, it'd be mostly useless separated from the original, but it'd still be his.
I don't equate copyright infringement with theft, but the analogy sometimes is useful. If you steal a diamond, and put it into a ring, and then give that ring away, the recipient is still receiving stolen goods. The excuse "But Scott said I could have it" is worthless. (The excuse "but I didn't know it was stolen" *might* help, but that's not always a given, and regardless, you don't get to keep the ring.)
Right. But according to Pemberton's website:
http://homepages.cwi.nl/~steven/pascal/
"Included here is the Pascal source of a public-domain Pascal compiler and interpreter, the P4 compiler and interpreter."
"The entire compiler and interpreter is documented in the book: _Pascal Implementation: The P4 Compiler and Interpreter_, by Steven Pemberton and Martin Daniels, Ellis Horwood, ISBN: 0-13-653-0311 (also available in Japanese)."
"It was distributed by John Wiley in other countries, but now that Prentice Hall has taken over Ellis Horwood, that will have changed."
"Steven Pemberton is contactable by email as Steven.Pemberton_AT_cwi_DOT_nl. He did not write the compiler, only documented it in the book."
"The Pascal-P compiler is possibly the most widely used Pascal compiler -- it has been the basis of many Pascal systems, including the well-known UCSD system, and there has even been a computer built specifically to run it. There have been many references to and articles about Pcode before, but never a full exposition of it."
"The P-code compiler developed as an offshoot of an effort to produce a compiler for a CDC 6000 computer. Papers describing this development are:
Amman, U. (1974), The Method of Structured Programming Applied to the Development of a Computer, International Computing Symposium 1973, (Ed. Guenter, A. et al.) North Holland, 93-99.
Amman, U. (1981a), The Zurich Implementation, (see Barron, 1981). Amman, U. (1981b), Code Generation of a Pascal Compiler, (see Barron, 1981).
Wirth, N. (1971), The Design of a Pascal Compiler, Software -- Practice and Experience, 1, 309-333."
Also, Wikipedia says this (I know, not strictly legal but still):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-code_machine
"Two early compilers generating p-code were the Pascal-P compiler in 1973, by Nori, Ammann, Jensen, Hageli, and Jacobi,[1] and the Pascal-S compiler in 1975, by Niklaus Wirth." (1) -> Nori, K.V.; Ammann, U.; Jensen; Nageli, H. (1975). _The Pascal P Compiler Implementation Notes_. Zurich: Eidgen. Tech. Hochschule.
EDIT: Just for clarity, I *think* Scott said that Pascal-P had various versions (P1,P2,etc.), culminating in P4 (last), in case the naming confuses you.
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Rugxulo wrote:
Did you know that Sourceforge (hosted in the U.S.) is now forbidding that projects (by default) distribute to "banned" countries? (Syria, North Korea, Cuba, etc.)
But the GPL doesn't let me arbitrarily do that, I can't omit sharing with anybody who wants sources. So who shall I obey? (I guess you'll say, "If you can't distribute it legally to everyone, you can't distribute it at all.")
If I remember rightly, the GPL gives licensees the privilege of redistributing (or not) to whomever they please, as long as all privileges granted by the GPL are passed on (licensees can even sell copies). Thus, I can decide not to distribute GPLed software to North Korea (with or without a legal prohibition), but I can't forbid others to do so.
I didn't know I needed to care about (non-military) software to other countries!! Seems insane. Okay, it is insane. So why would I obey that (esp. if I'm not hurting anyone)??
I agree that the policy is rather ridiculous, but them's the rules, and the fact that I disapprove of the rule is not sufficient reason to break it (either legally, or IMHO, morally). Besides, bad laws are more likely to be repealed if they're obeyed and enforced, thereby forcing society to live with the negative consequences of the bad law. Bad/Stupid laws that are mostly ignored are still available for use by malicious prosecutors or litigants, and are therefore more dangerous than stupid laws that are routinely followed.
--------------------------| John L. Ries | Salford Systems | Phone: (619)543-8880 x107 | or (435)867-8885 | --------------------------|
-
John L. Ries -
Rugxulo -
Steven D'Aprano