Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Chris Sonnack Date : Fri Sep 16 2005 01:13 pm Rob Thorpe writes: > 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. SOME compilers produce output that can easily be decompiled. But this is all a foolish line of debate. Whether the final product is opaque or transparent has nothing to do with this. It's just red herring. Because.... > No, it should apply to people writing programs too. It would not be > civilised to demand that people give away their secrets. How about the fruits of their labor? > What shouldn't apply is copyright, people should not be able to > arbitrarily protect with copyright what they distribute. Not "distribute", **create**. Copyright is about protecting the creator of a work from others freely benefiting for their efforts. > Maybe, but today patents don't protect the inventor they only protect > the financial concern that owns the patent. The law may be intended to > reward people for invention, but in practice it doesn't. So fix the practice. Don't toss out the baby. > Programming is best analogised to science not art, because no one > really cares much how aesthetic it is. Nonsense. I care deeply as a user and as a programmer. Programming is BOTH a science and an art. Very similar to architecture in that regard, because aesthetics are as important as material sciences. > It just has to work, so building directly on the work of others is > not tasteless. Not only tasteless, but--without their leave--morally dead wrong. >> You are arguing that programmers should have a right to >> plagiarism. Stunning. > > Yes. Shameful. No wonder the world is so messed up. Listen, suppose you send me 10% of your income for the next five years. No real reason, I just think I have a right to it. Given your point of view on these matters, I'm sure you'll have no difficulty with my request. Please start sending checks immediately. And, again, given you views on these matters, I'm sure that, if you fail to start sending me checks, you won't mind at all if I find some way to steal my 10% directly from your bank account. > 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. Scientists are *explorers* of nature, and their *discoveries* (not their *creations*) are rightfully shared, because there is no sense of property there. However the *creative* work of scientists *is* rightfully protected by patent and/or copyright. Likewise, the *explorations* by computer scientists ARE usually shared in journals and papers. > 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. Nonsense. I can benefit from the work of others in exactly the same way that artists do: seeing their work as a "user" can inspire me, elevate me and give me new ideas. What would be wrong is for me to benefit by stealing their work. >> 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. Nonsense. It's been a *huge* benefit to me. (I'm now really, really delighted that I chose to start writing log files in XML!) -- |_ CJSonnack _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________| .