Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Rob Thorpe
Date : Fri Aug 26 2005 12:24 pm

Chris Sonnack wrote:
> David Golden writes:
>
> > The slavery example shows that what is considered property by the
> > lawyers can change, anyway.
>
> A bad example, I think, due to the implication that it was just a
> matter of law that allowed and now prohibits slavery.  The presumption
> is that, all things being equal, the law could change back again.
>
> I do not believe all things ARE equal.  We realized that we were WRONG
> about slavery and corrected that wrong.  Actually, we always pretty
> much knew it was wrong--the error was in trying to pretend that the
> folks we stole from Africa were not really people, but some form of
> two-legged, articulate cattle.
>
> I VERY much doubt that the laws that have evolved to protect the
> efforts of the author/musicial/programmer/architect will ever be
> viewed as immoral.

There aren't really any laws that have been created to protect the
programmer, laws have been created to protect the author,musician and
architect, yes.  But it's those same laws that have been applied to
"protect" the programmer also.

The situations are in fact completely different.  There is no concept
of source and object code for example in any of those other
occupations.  An author, musician or architect can't hide how their
creations actually work, as a programmer can be copyrighting an almost
incomprehensible blob of machine code generated by a compiler.

The other professions are also not incremental.  I think I could, with
enough time to understand the problem, add a useful feature to any
piece of software in existance.  I think most programmers could.  I
doubt though that I could improve on Chapter 4 of "The Great Gatsby",
"Mr Tambourine Man" or King's College Chapel, and I doubt anyone else
could.

Lastly, ask users of software whether they think the laws that protect
it are correct.  Many will tell you that they protect one guy, and his
name's Bill.

.