comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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



  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