Re: POLL: Would you use Ada more if...

[Caffeine Junky <nospam@hotmail.com>]

On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 14:00:06 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:

> Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
> news:<slrnalsatm.2g5.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no
>  
>> Yes, but if the license is the same? :-)
> 
> If you download something from the net, it is up to you to verify that
> it is properly licensed. You can't just assume that because something
> says it is licensed under the GPL that it is. Three examples:
> 
> 1. Someone steals microsoft code and puts it on the net with a GPL
> notice. That in no way protects you if you illegally copy it and use it.
> 
> 2. Someone modifies a version of a standard GPL tool with non-GPL'ed
> code, but the tool still looks like it is GPL'ed. This in no way
> protects you if you illegally copy it and use it.

If I'm unable to compare the code in the GPLed work with Microsoft code,
how am I suppose to know that it was copied illegaly. The responsibility
lies with the person who did the copying in the first place. There is no
way Microsoft is going to lend me a copy of thier source code so that I
can check to see if it was illegaly ripped or not. I suspect most judges
would see it that way as well.
Furthermore, for this to even be possible, I would require access to the
source of every proprietary piece of software that's ever been made.
After all, the source code could come from anywhere.
What your suggesting is a practical impossibility.


> 3. Someone puts out a GPL'ed tool, and in good faith thinks that it is
> all their own work and they can issue a valid GPL, but in fact there are
> copyright or patent issues. You are compeltely responsible for any
> difficulties if you download this.
> Robert Dewar
> Ada Core Technologies
 
Although I would accept responsibility for any technical problems, it's
the responsibility of the company who "owns" the copyright or patent to
check the code and see if it infringes on thier IP. If the company doesnt
bother to enforce thier IP protections, then having a patent or copyright
is pointless anyways.
Likewise, is it reasonable to expect an individual developer to spend days
scanning patent and copyright databases and infinitum to make sure that
every jot and tittle of source code doesnt infringe on someone elses
so-called "Intellectual Property". Perhaps large companies can afford
this kind of work, but it's well beyond the resources of most (all?)
independent developers.

If your advice were adhered to strictly, it would be the death-knell for
any sort of innovation or productivity in the software industry. What
you're suggesting in this regard is outlandish and completely
unreasonable.

No judge in his right mind would enforce the kinds of terms your
suggesting.

If, however, you could concieve of a way to make your above points
practical for all software developers everywhere, then I might be
inclined to concede the points.

St4pL3