Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Gerry Quinn
Date : Wed Aug 31 2005 12:31 pm

In article <1125429596.199157.6770@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, 
robert.thorpe@antenova.com says...
>
> Exactly, in the other professions mentioned it's the work product that
> copyright is applied to.  In programming source code is the product the
> programmer produces.  However, it's something completely different,
> object code, that the copyright is applied to.

It's similar to a translation of a book, or a reproduction of a song on 
a different medium.  A singer produces air vibrations which are 
translated into digital or analogue data, and then to other data 
encodings.  The copyright persists. 

> Even if an artist wants to steal from someone else they're quite able
> to steal the overall structure.  Many writers have written books
> deriving plots from others.  Many painters have gleaned insight into
> techniques by examining the work of others.  Why do programmers not
> have the same right?

No programmer is prevented from watching a computer as it runs a 
program.  Painters may not take samples of paint to analyse chemically.

- Gerry Quinn

.