Then you find a way to "build a better mouse trap"! There are usually many ways to skin a cat as they say. If I can find a better way to do the FFT, peel potatoes, scale fish, Invent a device to nail jelly to a tree, whatever, I can copyright /patent and it is up to you to find a better way. Phil J. pjfjacks wrote: >I don't own the letters A-Z or a-z. I don't own the digits 0-9. I don't >own any words in the Oxford English dictionary. > >I can create and copyright a unique collection of those words ( an novel, >short story, new article, lyrics, etc.) > >A computer program is created as a collection of words - a unique collection >of those words, that when compiled and executed on a target OS will >(hopefully!) perform some function(s). > > Sorry, but this is *not* true. What if I own a patent for what could be the only possible way to write a fast realtime FFT algorithm? Nobody else can write an application that does the FFT at that speed. This is science (computer science, indeed). This is knowledge, and should be free. >To say that a software author cannot "own" that software nor have copyrights >to it is the same as to say an author / poet / screenwriter / columnist / >etc. cannot have any control over his work (or get paid for doing it) once >it is finished. > >Phil J. > > > > >On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 07:42:26PM -0600, Jan Depner wrote: > > >>If you want to compare apples to apples instead of >>apples to colostomy bags how about explaining how software is different >>from your latest song, novel, poem, picture. >> >> > >A computer program can be written as a big integer. Moreover, a >computer program has no representation that is not a big integer. > >A song, novel, poem, picture, all have representations that are not >integers. In particular, they are objects (though I contend >that the relevant fact is that they are not integers). > >Since there is no difference between some big integer and a computer >program, you must defend a copyright against either use. You have a >computer program and I am doing math. I email you my results, and it >contains the number of your program. I am using your program without >a license. After all, *you have no way to tell that I am not*. > >Alternatively, a good way to make illegal copies of software would be >to send an email that demonstrated some math. At a predetermined point, >some number would be the program in question. You couldn't claim >copyright infringment, because you have *no way of telling that I'm >not doing math*. > >Philisophically, if you accept ownership of software, I don't see how you >can not accept ownership of numbers without somehow appealing to the >intent of the user. > > >Artistic objects you mentioned like the above have representations >that are not integers. Though I can have a digital representation of >a painting that is an integer, I can also have an object that bears no >sensible mapping to the integers. So I argue that unlike computer >programs, things that are merely "digitizable" are very different from >things that are only "digital". > > > > c. -- www.cesaremarilungo.com
