Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Rob Thorpe
Date : Tue Sep 20 2005 11:57 am

Chris Sonnack wrote:
> 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.

Yes it does, see my discussion with Randy Howard in this thread.

> 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?

:) I don't think I ever said you have to do that.

> > 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.

Yes, but it doesn't matter very much that I own the copyright on my
shopping list.  Copyright only becomes important once something is
distributed.

>
> > 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.

I don't think it's vastly important personally.  Given a solution to a
problem that's exists but isn't elegant I'd choose to use it, if
nothing elegant existed.

> > 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.

That's only your opinion.  I would say that most of the world around us
is made by building on the work of others, and much of it directly.

> >> 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.

Of course I have a problem with that.  If I give you money I no longer
have it.  If I give you, or anyone else code, I can still keep a copy
and so can they.

> 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.

I would agree with your analysis of science certainly, but not of
computer science.  The creative work of scientists, if patented or
copyrighted, is still understandable by their peers in the area.  The
creative work of the programmer distributed as binary code are -in most
practical sense- not.

> > 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.

True.  But this is quite a meagre benefit.  An essential part of the
concept of allowing information to be considered property is that there
is some reciprosity.  A patent for example is time limited and requires
the inventor to reveal details of the invention.  There is no
reciprosity in the law as it applies to software.

> What would be wrong is for me to benefit by stealing their work.

I certainly agree with that, what I don't agree with is your
interpretation of what should be considered property.

> >> 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!)

Interesting, I'll have to have a look at that.

.