Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Randy Howard Date : Wed Aug 31 2005 01:03 pm Rob Thorpe wrote (in article <1125480091.914143.93630@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>): > Randy Howard wrote: >> A compiler and linker is just as much a tool to >> produce object code as a hammer or saw is to a cabinet maker. >> The source code isn't what most programmers are paid for, they >> are paid for the finished product. > > A compiler is completely different to a hammer or saw, the hammer or > saw doesn't make the product almost incomprehensible, even to those > knowledgable in the subject. No, it is a tool that converts raw materials into a finished product. That product is a working piece of software when executed, which is much more important than the encoding on the disk before it runs. Software written in scripting languages is of course trivial to understand. I would also point out that there was a time when I could "read" PDP-11 binaries and disassemble them in my head to macro-11 syntax. About all I remember of that today is the opcodes for a few instructions and the main addressing modes. However, at the time, it was certainly doable, because I did it every day, all day long. It's been many a moon since I've seen a running PDP-11, or a binary for it, so I won't pretend to still have that ability. >>> I don't think that something that could be changed, it would be an >>> unnecessary imposition on peoples freedom to limit their ability to >>> keep secrets. >> >> But somehow, that only applies to everyone /other/ than those >> wishing to keep source code secret? > > No, it should apply to people writing programs too. It would not be > civilised to demand that people give away their secrets. Ok. > What shouldn't apply is copyright, people should not be able to > arbitrarily protect with copyright what they distribute. But once they a buy a copy from this person, who they were just being so 'civilized' toward, they are free to make as many copies as they like and give them to all their friends? How civil. That doesn't seem to be very consistent with the above. I'm not 100% sure I know whether or not you think it's okay for people to not release their source code, or it isn't ok. I'm not sure how it lines up with your comment about keeping secrets if they want to do so. BTW, copyright is not arbitrary, it's automatic. >>> What I object to is people try to impose copyright on >>> the output of a *compiler* that they don't even understand. >> >> I don't follow you. >> > Oh come on :) Put it this way, Tollkien copyrighted the Silmarillion, which is basically unparseable. People can write books in made up gibberish, and copyright them. Or, they could write a book totally in code, a modern equivalent of the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili if you will, and copyright that. It's actual meaning would likely be /far/ less comprehensible to you, even after decades of study, than the object code of a compiler. Just because some copyrighted works are easy to understand, that does not mean that they all are as easy. Also, I fail to see how the ease of comprehension makes the copyright more or less valid. For a real life example. pick up a copy of "Reimann's Zeta Function" by H.M. Edwards, and get a randomly selected math teacher to explain every page to you. Better yet, try and get them to explain pages 152 and 153 alone in a convincing manner. Yet, I see this text "Copyright (C) Harold M. Edwards" inside. > Maybe, but today patents don't protect the inventor they only protect > the financial concern that owns the patent. Except in the cases where those are one and the same. You're just annoyed that corporations have patent portfolios. If you want to argue about redistribution of wealth, take it to a political newsgroup. Individuals apply for and are granted patents all the time. > The law may be intended to > reward people for invention, but in practice it doesn't. Yes it does. It may not do it as often as you would like, and to the exclusion of people that you have decided do not deserve it, but that's a different matter entirely. >>>> It's not incomprehensible to someone sufficiently skilled. >>>> Analyzing modern art and finding meaning in it is as opaque to >>>> me as reading even the source code, much less the binary of a >>>> large software project is to a performance artist. >>> >>> That's completely irrelevant, you're not an artist. It's not that >>> important that things be understandable to those outside the field, >>> since they couldn't possibly build on them. The problem is could an >>> artist analyze a peice of modern art? >> >> That would be a funny experiment. Find 100 artists, get 100 >> different opinions. :-) > > Not a problem. Find 100 art buyers get another 100 opinions. Your point above was that it wouldn't be understandable to me, but it would be to experts. By your own admission, the experts couldn't figure it out with any kind of a quorum on the facts either, so it's an intractable problem. So much for copyright on art I suppose if your theories were applied. :-) >> Artists work in clay, or wood, or pastels. They sell statues, >> carvings and paintings though. Get it? > > Yes, but the structure of the clay, wood or pastel is obvious in the > statue, carving or painting. The structure of a web browser is obvious to even relative novices to computer usage too. You don't need to examine object code to determine what software does. Running it is quite often sufficient. Again, I fail to see how this 'degree of difficulty' impinges on the ability to copyright something. >>> Programming is different, the intention is only to make something that >>> works. >> >> If that were completely true, there would be a lot less broken >> software out there. > > Are you saying the intention is to make something artistic? No, I was being flippant about whether or not programmers as a whole can be seriously described as having the sole intention of making something that works. Many of them don't appear to care if it works one way or the other, judging by the junk available on the market today. > Programming is best analogised to science not art, because no one > really cares much how aesthetic it is. I'm pretty much at the opposite end of this from you. Programming isn't a science, it's much too lacking in concrete knowledge. Look at the dozens, if not hundreds of books on various aspects of it that start out "The Art of ... It just has to work, so > building directly on the work of others is not tasteless. Ah, but the /art/ is in making it work when it doesn't want to. :-) >> You are arguing that programmers should have a right to >> plagiarism. Stunning. > > Yes. Well, I have to give you brownie points for admitting it. I'm disappointed in the answer, but at least you don't run away from it. >> Since it is easier to steal a plot from a book than to steal a >> function from a piece of hidden source code, you think there is >> a problem? > > Just as scientists are allowed to build on the work of their > predecessors, so programmers should be allowed to build on the work of > their predecessors. Because some scientists choose to publish their work, for that purpose. Some scientists /do not/ publish their work, and keep it as a trade secret as long as possible. Some scientists actually put out false information on purpose in the hopes of leading competitors astray. Anyway, what you are really advocating is forced confiscation of someone else's source code against their will? > At present they're not because of arbitrary restrictions put in their > way. They are not arbitrary. If I tell you, "hey, this is my code, I've been working on it for the last 5 years, and you can't have it", and you decide you are going to take it from me anyway, you better bring a weapon and hope you know how to use it better than I can use mine. That has nothing to do with copyright law, it's outright theft. >> Why should a programmer have a right to use source that I spent >> weeks or months working on, just so he can feel he has it as >> easy as an author too lazy to dream up his own murder plot line? > > So the scientist is allowed to benefit from his/her predecessors, the > artist or writer can benefit from his/her predecessors but the > programmer cannot. *sigh* There is no law that a 'scientist' has to release his work. He is free to set fire to it if he wants to. And sorry, programmers are /not/ scientists, there are some scientists that also know how to program, but you have to pay attention to the venn diagram on that one. It's not what you think it is. > This is why programming remains in the dark ages. That sounds so catchy, but it just isn't reality. Scientists have been studying chemistry for thousands of years. "Computer Science" has been around for a blink of an eye in comparison. I would expect it to be woefully incomplete at this point. It's rather staggering how far it has progressed in so brief a time. In another field, in this phase of infancy, they'd be burning you at the stake for something like thinking up quicksort instead of agreeing with the notion that bubblesort is nirvana about this far into the timeline. >> It would however, be totally unfair to the original author, >> unless that person /wanted/ to give it up for such acts. You >> might as well demand that chemists give up their formulas for >> snake oil, so that other snake oil companies won't have to start >> from scratch. What rational basis is there for this need to >> make others have it easier off the fruit of others' labor? > > I'm asking for nothing much different than other disciplines enjoy. > If you sell snake oil I can buy some of yours, analyze it and steal the > recipe. And you can do the same thing to a program. "Analyze" does not mean "give me the formula for that snake oil, right now, it's my right to steal it from you so I can advance my own 'science'". You must be arguing for access to the source code, because you have already stipulated that you find object code to hard to read. >> Strange, Office is going XML reportedly, despite still retaining >> copyright protection on their software. How can that be? > > They're not doing it in a way that's useful to anyone else. Explain. > There is no point in those companies that have an effective monopoly, > like microsoft, from trying to build better products, it's just a waste > of their money. M$ sure spends a lot of money on R&D for a company that sees no point in it. I wish they'd spend less, it would make it easier for some other companies to catch up with them. -- Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) .