Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Rob Thorpe
Date : Wed Aug 31 2005 04:49 am

Gerry Quinn wrote:
> 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.

No it isn't.  You can listen to a singer and understand what they're
saying easily, the same is not true of object code.

> > 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.

No, but it doesn't inform in anything like the same way reading a book
does.  Besides, at least in the US it's illegal to reverse engineer
code.

> Painters may not take samples of paint to analyse chemically.

They don't need to to copy the colour.

.