22 Feb
2006
22 Feb
'06
11:03 p.m.
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 22:23 -0500, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
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).
Any song, picture, or novel can be represented as an integer or a
series of numbers in the same way. Check out Michael F. Barnsley and
Iterated Fractal Systems.
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*.
This is so specious it doesn't deserve an answer. Are you trying to
say that there is absolutely no creative process involved in
programming?
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.
Let's get into logic just a bit here. First, yes all programs can
be represented by an integer. So can just about anything written or
depicted as a picture. Just because a program can be represented as an
integer does not mean that someone is trying to copyright a number.
What you're doing is called reverse syllogism. It works like this:
All dogs have a tail. That animal has a tail, therefor it is a dog.
Or, to be more precise, in your version:
All programs are an integer. That is an integer, therefor it is a
program.
I definitely accept ownership of software. If I didn't I certainly
wouldn't be writing any open source software since ownership and
copyright of that software is what protects my code from being usurped
by any company around and used without my permission. Is that what you
are advocating, that all software should be public domain so that
companies that don't release source code can just steal it and hide it
from you? Brilliant!
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".
A program is an artistic object or at least it can be. Any program
that is above the complexity of "Hello World" will be programmed
differently by any two programmers. My assumption from reading your
responses is that you are not a programmer. I've been programming
professionally (i.e. I get paid for it) for almost 30 years.
On the bright side I do admire your signature tag ;-)
--
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
The Fuzzy Dice
http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html
"As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and
this we should do freely and generously."
Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of
Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744