From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a7365ff3531de5f4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: controlnews3.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!proxad.net!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Amado Alves Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:21:12 +0100 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: Reply-To: amado.alves@netcabo.pt NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1083337150 62036 212.85.156.195 (30 Apr 2004 14:59:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:59:10 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:137 Date: 2004-04-30T16:21:12+01:00 On Friday 30 April 2004 15:40, Preben Randhol wrote: > On 2004-04-30, Marius Amado Alves 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 s= ee > > 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=20 copyright system as a (monetary) reward mechanism for authors. Kasakov's = sees=20 to hold an extreme position on this. Basically he says it doesn't work. I= 'm=20 trying to understand this, because seemingly there is ample evidence to t= he=20 contrary in the case of books at least. Consistent with his premise, Kasa= kov=20 suggests software authors do not sell their work, but instead insurance. = And=20 that this model be enforced by law. I agree selling insurance is a good=20 model, but I think enforcing it would make more harn than good. Another=20 strong point in Kasakov's view is that software is now engineering, not a= rt.=20 I agree. But I still think you can copyright works of engineering. Insure= d or=20 not.