22 Feb
2006
22 Feb
'06
1:59 a.m.
I do find it very admirable that they do are doing so.
I have no quarrels about that - Linux is really nice stuff.
My point is that there is a choice a software writer /plumber
/electrician/carpenter can make. They can give away some or all of their
Services / products for free - that is fine and a good thing.
If that is their main trade and practice - who pays the bills???
There is no free lunch - SOMEONE is paying for it!
Phil J.
Ok, let's try to take the problem from another direction.
What do you think is the reason some talented coders and some
influential thinkers are putting a lot of efforts into writing and
maintaining open source software if it is not the belief that sharing
knowledge, solutions, tools and such is the way to go?
Why Paul Davis started writing Jack and Ardour instead of writing
another commercial DAW and then try to sell it to a publisher?
pjfjacks wrote:
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:
c.
--
www.cesaremarilungo.com
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:
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.
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.