Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Gerry Quinn
Date : Sat Sep 24 2005 11:23 am

In article <51a9j1pckqoo9903rl0b1k6hr4sj2vdhvf@4ax.com>, 
Chris@Sonnack.com says...
> Antoon Pardon writes:

> Actually, I do own the number 342659877636254998736254512998364.
> Had it for years.  (-:
> 
> Sorry, thought we needed a little levity.
> 
> Yes, I don't own the specific number any more than an author owns the
> letters or words in his book.  What an author owns is total package--in
> the case of a book, the way the letters and words are strung together.

Strictly speaking, that's just a very big number.  As Gen. Patton 
observed, quantity has a quality all of its own.  The numeric string 
representing a book can be controlled under copyright law.  But it's so 
large it isn't going to come up in ordinary numeric work.

> > I would say a film is different from a beer recipe. In a sense the
> > film is the product that is payed for, but people don't pay for
> > the recipe, they pay pay for the beer. So IMO these two don't
> > need to be treated the same. Maybe there are good arguments to
> > do so, but I don't see the need a priori.

There's a big difference between copyrights and patents, precisely to 
cover the differences between these situations.

[Although a beer recipe would be a poor choice for explaining the 
important differences.]

- Gerry Quinn

.