Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Chris Sonnack Date : Fri Sep 16 2005 12:54 pm Rob Thorpe writes: >> And there is no concept of a saxophone reed in software >> developemnt, but that is irrelevant. What is common is the idea >> of work product. > > 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. Is it really? I've purchased quite a bit of software, but oddly there was no source in any of it. Seems to me the product was the *program* I bought. > What I object to is people try to impose copyright on > the output of a *compiler* that they don't even understand. I doubt most musicians *understand* the output of their digital processors. They just know how to use that output. And what does understanding have to do with anything? >> Sure they can. does a guitarist /have/ to tell you what sort of >> home grown effect he built in his garage for that really cool >> sounding 3rd track on his debut CD? No. > > It's not hard to make a similar sound. There are very few really > difficult things to reverse engineer. Once multiple sounds are blended together, they are as difficult to reverse engineer--if not more so--than compiled code. Many chemical processes depend on the order of the steps used, and are also incredibly difficult--even impossible--to reverse engineer. > Programming is different, the intention is only to make something > that works. I totally disagree. Getting it "working" is just the first step. Then comes making it work *well*, *elegantly*, *efficiently* and, finally, *aesthetically*. I spend considerable effort making my GUIs look good, which has nothing to do with the functionality of the program. -- |_ CJSonnack _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________| .