Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)

Randy Howard wrote:
> Rob Thorpe wrote
> (in article
> <1125080649.650054.60790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):
>
> > Chris Sonnack wrote:
> >> David Golden writes:
> >>
> >>> The slavery example shows that what is considered property by the
> >>> lawyers can change, anyway.
> >>
> >> A bad example, I think, due to the implication that it was just a
> >> matter of law that allowed and now prohibits slavery. The presumption
> >> is that, all things being equal, the law could change back again.
> >>
> >> I do not believe all things ARE equal. We realized that we were WRONG
> >> about slavery and corrected that wrong. Actually, we always pretty
> >> much knew it was wrong--the error was in trying to pretend that the
> >> folks we stole from Africa were not really people, but some form of
> >> two-legged, articulate cattle.
> >>
> >> I VERY much doubt that the laws that have evolved to protect the
> >> efforts of the author/musicial/programmer/architect will ever be
> >> viewed as immoral.
> >
> > There aren't really any laws that have been created to protect the
> > programmer, laws have been created to protect the author,musician and
> > architect, yes. But it's those same laws that have been applied to
> > "protect" the programmer also.
> >
> > The situations are in fact completely different.
>
> Not really. If you slice and dice properly, you can pretend
> otherwise though, as we see.

:) that's exactly what you're doing.

> > There is no concept
> > of source and object code for example in any of those other
> > occupations.
>
> 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. However, it's something completely different,
object code, that the copyright is applied to.

> Not to mention the more general 'trade
> secrets' that allow companies (of any kind) to protect their
> work, such as pharmaceutical companies, 3M to protect the
> formula for the famously bad glue responsible for sticky notes,
> or even for McDonald's to pretend that 'secret sauce' isn't
> really watered down Thousand Island dressing.

I don't think that something that could be changed, it would be an
unnecessary imposition on peoples freedom to limit their ability to
keep secrets. What I object to is people try to impose copyright on
the output of a *compiler* that they don't even understand.

> > An author, musician or architect can't hide how their
> > creations actually work,
>
> 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.

> > as a programmer can be copyrighting an almost
> > incomprehensible blob of machine code generated by a compiler.
>
> It's not incomprehensible to someone sufficiently skilled.
> Analyzing modern art and finding meaning in it is as opaque to
> me as reading even the source code, much less the binary of a
> large software project is to a performance artist.

That's completely irrelevant, you're not an artist. It's not that
important that things be understandable to those outside the field,
since they couldn't possibly build on them. The problem is could an
artist analyze a peice of modern art? Ideas are the medium modern
artists work in. It's also one of the mediums programmers work in, but
the main one is source code - not object code.

> > The other professions are also not incremental. I think I could, with
> > enough time to understand the problem, add a useful feature to any
> > piece of software in existance. I think most programmers could. I
> > doubt though that I could improve on Chapter 4 of "The Great Gatsby",
> > "Mr Tambourine Man" or King's College Chapel, and I doubt anyone else
> > could.
>
> Because you are not trained in it.

:) How do you know?

> I have talked to plenty of
> artists (and especially architects) that firmly believe they
> could improve on famous products in their field,

Yes, but do they actually want to? Probably not, direct derivation is
not the province of art. Artist aim to put their own stamp on what
they do.

Programming is different, the intention is only to make something that
works.

Even if an artist wants to steal from someone else they're quite able
to steal the overall structure. Many writers have written books
deriving plots from others. Many painters have gleaned insight into
techniques by examining the work of others. Why do programmers not
have the same right?

> just as
> software developers often claim they could make software work
> better if they just had access to the source. Some are right,
> some are full of crap, it's true in every profession where you
> find opinionated people.

It would hardly break any artistic vision to let them try though.

> > Lastly, ask users of software whether they think the laws that protect
> > it are correct. Many will tell you that they protect one guy, and his
> > name's Bill.
>
> They don't have to buy his software. The fundamental problem is
> the consumer herd mentality, not the law. If consumers only
> were willing to pay for quality, and actively boycotted bad
> software, bill gates would not be a billionaire today. He'd
> probably be selling used cars.

Probably not. Software is dominated by issues of compatability. So
long as companies can hide behind copyright law the important
interchange formats will remain proprietry. Whoever controls those
formats will control a large amount of the software landscape, once it
was IBM, now it's Microsoft, it may be someone else in ten years time.
Regardless of who it is they will be mediocre because they won't have
to try.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... >> matter of law that allowed and now prohibits slavery. ... > There aren't really any laws that have been created to protect the ... > "protect" the programmer also. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... > matter of law that allowed and now prohibits slavery. ... There aren't really any laws that have been created to protect the ... "protect" the programmer also. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
    ... >> matter of law that allowed and now prohibits slavery. ... > There aren't really any laws that have been created to protect the ... > "protect" the programmer also. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Protecting Your Children Knowing these Laws
    ... protect your children. ... These US laws apply to all criminals living ... the Supreme Court unanimously declared the CDA ... The Child Online Protection Act (COPA): ...
    (soc.culture.thai)
  • Re: Overnighting in Wal-Mart with dogs
    ... Laws aren't written to protect the public. ... effect is to hopefully lessen the odds of a crime being committed. ... merely punish. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)