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

["AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz>]

Let me tear your argument down to pieces. Even while
I'm not nearly in the same legal expertise group as Dr Dewar,
your arguments are so full of holes that:


[And yes, I do realise I'm responding to a troll but it seemed
interesting enough to do that]


"Caffeine Junky" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9Jx79.182317$uj.257854@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 14:00:06 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
>

> > 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.

How do you know that W95 CD that came with your machine
was *not* copied illegaly? It has nothing to do with access
to the code. Or ability to compare it with some standard or other.

> The responsibility
> lies with the person who did the copying in the first place.

Next time you buy a stolen car, try telling that to the cops ...

> 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.

Why would they? You either buy it from them or their
approved resellers or you are buying a stolen copy.
No question of code compares.

> I suspect most judges
> would see it that way as well.

I rather doubt that but it's up to the judges to decide.
The question is however - what sort of a business
would want to use something in it's day-to-day
operations which require a court (judge's) call
to say if it's legal or not?

> What your suggesting is a practical impossibility.

Hmmm ...

>
> > 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.

Let's try this:

A person takes out a loan on his/her car. Then, he or she sells it to
another
person who (just by mistake) does not check the register and drives around
in it for a while before selling it to you (in good faith). You liked the
car so
much that you forgot to check the debts on it either (yeah, yeah, I know
- not likely to happen but just for the sake of argument}. Come reposession
time - who do you think pays? Yes, you can try to reclaim your losses from
either or both of the first two parties. But regradless of how it goes, the
debt
collection company will be on *your* tail far before you can even try to sue
either of them.

> 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".

No. That's why you should have a legally-binding contract which states
that the "IP" is, in fact, the property of whoever sells it and will
indemnify you
in case of any breaches. In this way, the only risk you take on is that the
seller is totally bogus and will disappear tomorrow. There is that, but it's
a somewhat smaller risk than just downloading something from an unknown
source and betting your business on it ...

> 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.

No, (getting into the independent developer's shoes) you would want
to make sure that whatever you have developed is protecetd at least
a bit - including it not being copied without your express permission.
(Unless you publish it under the GPL or similar that is)

> What
> you're suggesting in this regard is outlandish and completely
> unreasonable.

That's your opinion.

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

That's up to the judge(s) to decide. But, seeing that this kind of
terms have been enforced before, I'd rather withhold my bets ...