From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9a5f3bd162009c01
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Hyman Rosen" <hyman.rosen@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT GPL 2005: Too clever by half?
Date: 26 Sep 2005 11:28:01 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1127759281.528756.277520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <70e0e$4331acfc$4995583$14979@ALLTEL.NET>
   <87hdcew7wq.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
   <1127511077.919641.107390@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <1127511845.326730.136640@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <1127598547.091846.174720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.248.208
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1127759286 4260 127.0.0.1 (26 Sep 2005 18:28:06
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:28:06 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050716 (No IDN) Firefox/1.0.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=204.253.248.208;
   posting-account=lJDDWg0AAACmMd7wLM4osx8JUCDw_C_j
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5161
Date: 2005-09-26T11:28:01-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Chad  R. Meiners wrote:
> When you invoke a property established by a theorem, are you making a
> copy of that theorem.  No, you are not.  This is beside the point.

Yes you are. Whether the proof includes existing results by
reference rather than by value is irrelevant, just as it is
(mostly) in your favorite programming language. The fact is
that without the intense labor of the people whose proofs
are being used, further work based upon them could not be
done. And yet those people remain uncompensated by the users.

> Your statement is self-contradictory.

No. For example, I am compensated for my labor as a programmer.
But I work for a bank, so my work is for-hire. I do not control
what happens to my work, or who may use it. I will not receive
any further compensation should my work be incorporated into a
program which my employer might choose to sell. And yet, I do
not feel ill-used. Quite the contrary in fact.

> Furthermore, the quote "Stallman would simply deny you the
> ability to prevent others from using the product of your
> labor." reads as "Stallman prevents you from protecting
> yourself from the theft of your labor", which is a pretty
> serious violation of our rights.

But there is no theft involved. Stallman is advocating a
condition which he would like to see exist. Were it to be so,
programmers would know ahead of time that they could not control
how their work is used by others. Then they could freely choose
to participate or not. As it stands, I feel that it is theft
that the governments take my tax money and use it to prevent
people from copying protected works. Why should my money go to
assure someone else's profits?