On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 05:51:05PM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote: > On Fri, 22 May 2015, David Lamparter wrote: > > > Paul is essentially advocating Oracle, arguing for strong copyright on > > APIs. > > No, no I'm not.
Your position is a "superset" of Oracle's position; your position can't have merit if Oracle's doesn't. By implication, you're thus assuming that Oracle wins the court case. "Advocating" is an exaggeration, which is why there's an "essentially" in front. You *are* arguing strong copyright on APIs. The remainder of my mail served to illustrate that connection. Now where did that go? > If I argue "This is how reality is" that does not imply that I approve of > that reality. [Eristic #6/#22: Postulate the thesis / Petitio principii] You mean, "reality as you perceive it." Each of us is arguing our respective perceptions of what the "reality" works like. Even scientists can't make "this is how reality is" arguments. Einstein proved that different observers can get opposite measurement results of the same so-called "objective truth" if their frames are different :) > I did mention Sun^WOracle v Google to you once - that was meant only as > further (abstract) evidence of the "copyright maximilism" view that > appears to be favoured by many lawyers. It's not directly relevant here. It is, I'm saying if Oracle's position has no merit in court, yours won't either. I saw no counterargument to this implication? > I have a lot of sympathy for the notion, still held by some > programmers, that the code you write should be yours, and no one else > should have a say over it. Things would be simple, clear and it'd be > easy to share and build on code. [Eristic #1/#3: Extend / Generalize specific statements] No one is arguing programmers have complete freedom on their code. [Eristic #32: Associate thesis with some odious category ["outdated"]] "still" implies that one notion has replaced / is replacing the other. That doesn't seem to be true, yet, since the Oracle vs. Google case isn't decided yet. We don't know which reality courts will apply. > Blaming the fellow maintainer for pointing out reality isn't terribly > productive. [Eristic #16/#18: Ad Hominem / Divert] I don't see blame here? And as mentioned above, reality is relative... I did blame you for not anticipating the fallout from the babeld merge, but quite honestly I think that's an acceptable blame to place. -David _______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
