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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 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!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: [OT] Right to use vs. sue (was: No call for Ada...) Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 10:19:09 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.119) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083571489 18578061 I 212.79.194.119 ([77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:196 Date: 2004-05-03T10:19:09+02:00 List-Id: On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:21:12 +0100, Marius Amado Alves wrote: >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 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