From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...)
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 10:19:09 +0200
Date: 2004-05-03T10:19:09+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <r4vb90pd7q6rf67tmjrr7jlpmo93kivc6h@4ax.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: mailman.37.1083337149.313.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:21:12 +0100, Marius Amado Alves
<maa@liacc.up.pt> wrote:
>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.
Actually, my position is not so strong. I believe that "no warranty"
licenses has to be void in all cases where software differs from a
book. I.e. when software is bought not to entertain (cannot be
warranted), but to accomplish some work (can and should).
>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.
No, talking in programming language terms you can copyright a type but
not its instance. So one can copyright an engineering decision, not an
example of its use. It would be a nonsense to copyright a car, but it
is what actually happens with software.
--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-05-03 8:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-04-29 11:08 [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...) amado.alves
2004-04-29 13:49 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2004-04-29 14:45 ` Marius Amado Alves
2004-04-30 13:00 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2004-04-30 22:16 ` Marius Amado Alves
2004-04-30 13:48 ` Preben Randhol
2004-04-30 15:00 ` Marius Amado Alves
2004-04-30 14:40 ` Preben Randhol
2004-04-30 15:21 ` Marius Amado Alves
2004-05-03 8:19 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov [this message]
2004-05-03 19:28 ` Marius Amado Alves
2004-05-03 12:08 ` [OT] Right to use vs. sue Georg Bauhaus
2004-05-03 22:02 ` Marius Amado Alves
2004-05-04 7:48 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2004-05-04 9:53 ` Marius Amado Alves
2004-05-04 12:45 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
[not found] ` <8QPlc.22135$3Q4.552939@news20.bellglobal.com>
2004-05-05 11:34 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2004-05-05 16:45 ` Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
2004-05-03 14:22 ` [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...) Dmitry A. Kazakov
2004-05-04 1:40 ` Marius Amado Alves
2004-05-04 8:57 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2004-04-29 15:27 ` Martin Krischik
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox