In comp.lang.pascal.misc Scott Moore <samiamsansspam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> I'll be putting this and other programs online. I don't have a decision
yet
>> on the BSI suite, the authors have not returned my email. Again, the
recommendation
>> is that you scan this yourself.
>
> I guess I'll put the final nail in this. I have been reading through the
PUG letters
> carefully of late, and it seems clear that although the test was
published there,
> that the authors didn't consider that to be a release of their copyright
in any way.
> Several times later the authors claim copyright on the work, and list a
distribution
> price. Aside from the first printing, there are no further published
examples.
Unfortunately copyright law seems to allow this ...
> Now I still believe that the Pascal test suite, as published (but not as
later
> modified!) bears that same release of rights, since no copyright was
claimed for
> it at the time it was published.
An additional complication is that, at least in some jurisdictions,
software has different copyright laws than other works. I don't know
how this applies to printed copies of programs ...
> However, there are many places in programming where intents are honored
as well
> as laws. For example, many open source authors restrict their works from
for-profit
> applications, which some have said does not fit the legal definition of
copyright
> (it goes to the issue of if you can allow copying at will but still
restrict use).
> Regardless of the law, I, and many others I am sure, honor the authors
wishes
> in such matters.
I think that's legal, though I don't do that myself, and AFAIK, most
open source authors don't either -- in fact, the OSI definition of
"open source" explicitly precludes this, see
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php#6.
Anyway, IANAL, but basically the copyright holder can design any
(otherwise legal) license, with restrictions as he prefers, and the
licensee can choose to accept or reject the whole license, AFAIK.
Anything else is a matter of negotiations.
> I have also felt free to use the test suite as published to verify IP
Pascal,
> which is a usage of the material. Because the authors clearly ask for
re****ts
> on the usage of the suite, without (apparently) requiring that it be
obtained
> in paid binary from them, I believe this is proper. For example, even
without
> scanning and character recognition technology, I could have typed the
material
> in and executed it. Note that my having typed it in would still not have
given
> me license to distribute it, just as a program appearing in an article
can
> be clearly copyrighted, but not disallow my typing in and executing
that.
Indeed.
I understand your concerns about distributing the programs. I
probably wouldn't either in your position.
I suppose this also applies to single copies by private mail, does
it? That's actually bad, as this means, by the same reasoning, that
even if someone of the GPC team scanned and OCRed the programs on
his own, we couldn't even share them among ourselves ...
BTW, do you feel inclined to run GPC through the test suite
sometime, now that you have it handy? In case of failures, we could
still refer to test programs as we have the printed copies
available, that's the good thing. If anything is required to set it
up for your automated testing environment (which I presume you have
made), I can probably take care of it, if you let me know what's
necessary.
Frank
--
Frank Heckenbach, frank@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://fjf.gnu.de/
GnuPG and PGP keys: http://fjf.gnu.de/plan
(7977168E)
Pascal code, BP CRT bugfix: http://fjf.gnu.de/programs.html
Free GNU Pascal Compiler: http://www.gnu-pascal.de/
|
