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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-29 03:22:12 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:36:15 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.119) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083234130 12086975 I 212.79.194.119 ([77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7559 Date: 2004-04-29T12:36:15+02:00 List-Id: On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:41:12 +0400 (MSD), "Alexander E. Kopilovich" wrote: >Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> It is merely the price scientists should pay for having an >> ability to do science. > >No, these days majority of professional scientists recognize all that not as >the price, but as the elements of more or less natural collaborative >environment. Althought you certainly may say (as some others do) that there >is no contradiction, as this collaborative environment is exactly the price >for having an ability to do science. And that is the key - "to do science". >If you want TO DO SCIENCE then this is The Way. Who defined The Way? Why is it the only way now? Is there any better way? >When the primary goal changes >from "to know" and "to understand" to "to do" then the natural form of >cooperation changes accordingly. It seems that you are considering all aspects of human activity as something God-given. Our science, law, market, highway striping and of course not to forget, MS-Word are as they are. If so then there is no basis for any discussion. >> >> Where you saw individual software sellers? >> > >> >I'm quite surprised by this question - don't you know, for example, that many >> >authours of shareware products are individual sellers? Don't you know that >> >sufficiently many of those shareware products have significant customer base? >> >> Shareware products are irrelevant for the software market. They get >> probably less than 0.1% of its volume. > >You are surprizing me again - you are looking at the current proportion only, >that is, at the proportion of current shareware products in the whole current >software market. But you seem not interested in how many commercial software >products or their parts started as shareware products, and not interested in >how many shareware products are used internally in software development, that >is, as tools and components used in a development of commercial products. I do not care how a commertial software started. >> They are also irrelevant for software development as a phenomenon. > >Phenomenon? Is accounting a phenomenon? Is scientific or engineering >computation a phenomenon? By the way, the WordNet tells me that: > >phenomenon -- (any state or process known through the senses rather than by >intuition or reasoning) They distinguish intuition from senses, which IMO difficult to do (intuition is just an n-th sense), but otherwise it is OK. >Do you really think that software development is known through the senses >rather than by intuition or reasoning ? Exactly. It is useless to reason about software development. If you do not believe me, reread our discussion. It is a perfect example of what happens when people start to talk about software developing in general. >> Because, it is clear that >> software cannot be produced by individuals, > >It is not clear for me. Can an individual produce a novel? Well, a big novel, >in several volumes? Of course not - because a paper must be produced (even >for original writing) then the book must be printed in several thousand >copies, than these books must be sold to thousands people. To clarify things, I did not mean neither network administrators nor those who are attaching labels on CDs. >Certainly an >individual can't do all that job. So why we still speak about the so-called >"authors" as creators of novels? I meant exclusively the software creators: the software architects, project managers, programmers, testers, technical writers. That's for software dealing with solely software. For an application, entertainment software we need to add hundreds of other professions. >> at least at the current level of technology. > >Individuals are very different in their abilities, software is very different >in its various scales, and current level of technology is a mythical thing >along with man-year (do you remember man-month?). I do. Note, even that time software development was already not a craft. >> So shareware gives no answer to the question, how >> humankind should organize software development. > >Humankind organizing software development... it's impressive. Worldwide >Softlag Archipelago, I suppose? Come on. There is UN, WTO and thousands of other worldwide organizations trying to influence one or another aspect of human activity. Most of these activities are far less important than software development. Because, again, it will influence everything, and in a very short period of time. >> >For example, if you product faulted and the user has right to sue for that >> >then s/he will sue *you*. And then you'll spend time in court, you'll spend >> >money for lawyers, and even if you win the case, you still may be ruined. And >> >your competitor can relatively easily provide 10 doubtful cases for you - >> >just to keep you detracted from your business for some time and as a >> >consequence - ruined. >> >> Why this does not happen (or very limited) in 90% of all other areas >> of business activity, where one can sue? What is so special about >> software, which forces us to treat it otherwise? > >This does not happen (or almost does not happen) in traditional areas where >stable experience is present - for example, there is commom understanding >that you can sue for a rotten food, but you can't sue if you dislike the food >because it does not correspond to your taste. Also you can sue if a little >rain destroys your shoe immediatealy after you bought it, but you can't sue >if it appeared that you bought a shoe of wrong size and it does not fit your >foot. It is not experience, it is case law. You cannot have it before suit. Remember the suits against tobacco industry and McDonalds. >But there is no such traditional common understanding regarding software >products - not only because software is too young (about two decades of more >or less wide public use), but also because software is too generic notion. >Look at computer games - is it software? If yes than what can be a valid >cause for a suit? The game annoys me? This is an unrelated case to what I wrote about. BTW, it is the most difficult case. Anything heavily related to arts is a huge problem for "market order". There is no good model to reward creators. The only known way is copyright and patent law. This model works very poor. I propose no changes here, for I have no idea how we (humans) could get out this mess. >The game damaged eyes of my child? >The game attracted my child too strong? These could be valid cases even now. >Then look at text editors (not >necessarily MS Word). Can I sue the vendor of my text editor for passing my >typo (well, very unplesant typo) into important printed document? No. As with other products you can sue only if there is a serios damage. But what I actually meant, is that if there is a serious defect (such as periodic crash, data corruption etc), the customer should have right to get money back (during a definite period of time). There could be other models. For example the vendor could provide a newer version with the bug removed and an extended warranty time etc. Again, all there measures are well known for a long period of time. Of course no vendor there is happy with these rules. However they should be, because in medieval Luebeck, they would be placed in a cage exhibited to public until they die. >> If yes, then tell me what kind of >> knowledge one have to possess to really understand all the secrets of >> words "NO WARRANTY"? > >The WordNet tells me that: > >guarantee, warrant, warranty -- (a written assurance that some product or >service will be provided or will meet certain specifications) > >So "NO WARRANTY" in the context of a license for some product should mean >that there is "NO WRITTEN ASSURANCE THAT THIS PRODUCT WILL MEET CERTAIN >SPECIFICATIONS". > >Quite clear, I think. In short: "You can't sue". See, you need not to be a lawyer. >> >What I see in reality is quite rapid progress. One may clain that the progress >> >might be more rapid and more comprehensive if some other rules were in effect. >> >> So far the only "rapid progress" you have specified was the number of >> users. It is irrelevant. > >Not just number of users, but many new categories of users and many new >sorts of applications. Again this is not progress. It is a law of market which fills all holes. This would happen anyway. For example Germany (and EU) keep trying to stop practical use of genetics. They will fail. You cannot prevent, though you can regulate (a bit). And note, that legislation usually follows the market. So if a really new application area appears, it is usually not covered by any law. For good or bad. >> >> 3. It gives customers no protection from fraud; >> > >> >But that gives vendors protection from dishonest or simply ignorant suits. >> >> The legal system. It has been worked so far, so I don't see why it >> should collapse because of software. > >You mean suits about software or use of software tools within the legal >system? Or the problem of how court, being a user of software will sue the >software vendor? The first. >> Anyway, if you think it would, then prove it. > >Quite strange "then". Are we already in court, where I must prove all my >statements? Anyway, there is nothing to prove. No, your point seems to be: "there is something very specific in software products which expulses them from juridical system." This is a strong statement, so a proof, please. >> >> 4. It imposes real threat to basic human rights (see DCMA) >> > >> >I can't see how introduction of liability of vendor will prevent or destroy >> >DCMA and alike. >> >> Because you will not need "right of software use" to get money from. > >So you suppose that software vendors will happily give away their source I do not care about their happiness! It is not my business, there are psychoanalysts, gurus, astrologers at their service. >of >income and endorse the new one, which you propose, however murky and >unexplored it is? It is explored. >Or you think that the State will go forward and suppress >their resistance? Yes. It goes after laughable removal IE from Windows. It goes after reverse engineering etc. They should find a better occupation for our taxes! >Well, possibly there are states that indeed are ready to do >so, but those countries do not determine the software market, at least >currently, and probably they will not determine it in near future. Nonsense. >> >Generally, I don't see how can your "insurance" (or liability) decrease or >> >suppress "right of use". I think that you propose to add that liability to >> >"right of use". >> >> I propose that bare "right of use" licenses shall be made void. If >> Microsoft writes "NO WARRANTY", then it automatically loses its right >> of *any* legal protection against piracy. > >So you indeed propose to add liabiality of vendors to the "rights of use" >for users. The worst of both worlds in a single bottle. Made in State. As the first step, for those who are so obsessed with copyright issues. Later when market will be freed from monopolies it will clean itself from the "use right of a sequence of 0s and 1s" nonsense. >> Everybody knows that the copyright protection laws work much >> less efficiently and have much more nasty side effects than ones >> regulating product quality. > >Not everybody. For example, I suppose that most authors - both in literature >and in science - do not know that. I answered that. Software conrolling a car is not literature neither it is a science, which BTW practically knows no copyright. >I think that they will not be happy if >their copyrights were linked with their liability so that every dissatisfied >reader could sue them. And I doubt that the quality of literature and science >will advance with introduction of that liability. -- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de