Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!ira.uka.de!smurf!urlichs
From: urlichs@smurf.sub.org (Matthias Urlichs)
Subject: Re: Amendments
Message-ID: <8.7_#!+@smurf.sub.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1991 21:06:16    
Organization: University of Karlsruhe, FRG
References: <1455@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> <m90H12w164w@dogface> <1476@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>
Lines: 20

In comp.org.eff.talk, article <1476@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>,
  learn@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (William  Vajk ) writes:
< In article <m90H12w164w@dogface> bei@dogface (Bob Izenberg) writes:
< 
< >I've named five functions that one computer performs right here in the
< >apartment.  
< 
< That's part of the problem, dont you know. We can only define it in terms of
< the growing number of functions, different strokes for different folks.
< 
But it shouldn't be. If there's no functional difference, I see no reason not
to extend the protection of the law / constitution / whatever.

On the other hand, if something is illegal, such an extension on functional
grounds is debatable at best; I don't know about the US, but in Germany it's
expressly forbidden after certain bad experiences half a century ago...

-- 
Matthias Urlichs -- urlichs@smurf.sub.org -- urlichs@smurf.ira.uka.de     /(o\
Humboldtstrasse 7 - 7500 Karlsruhe 1 - FRG -- +49-721-621127(0700-2330)   \o)/
