Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)

[Marius Amado Alves <maa@liacc.up.pt>]

On Friday 30 April 2004 15:40, Preben Randhol wrote:
> On 2004-04-30, Marius Amado Alves <maa@liacc.up.pt> wrote:
> > I don't think patents was the point. I know patenting ideas is
> > problematic. The issue is copyrighting source-code. I still fail to see
> > why *that* is more problematic than copyrighting, say, books.
>
> Hmm I seem to have gotten the wrong end of the stick here. Everything
> you do has your copyright so your source code is your copyright unles
> you have sign an agreement giving it to your employer or another party.

I should have been more specific in my recapitulation. The issue was the 
copyright system as a (monetary) reward mechanism for authors. Kasakov's sees 
to hold an extreme position on this. Basically he says it doesn't work. I'm 
trying to understand this, because seemingly there is ample evidence to the 
contrary in the case of books at least. Consistent with his premise, Kasakov 
suggests software authors do not sell their work, but instead insurance. And 
that this model be enforced by law. I agree selling insurance is a good 
model, but I think enforcing it would make more harn than good. Another 
strong point in Kasakov's view is that software is now engineering, not art. 
I agree. But I still think you can copyright works of engineering. Insured or 
not.