25 Feb
2006
25 Feb
'06
5:06 p.m.
On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 21:04 -0500, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 09:00:15PM -0600, Jan Depner
wrote:
Not at all! I think I wasn't clear with my claim. I am making a
careful distinction between an actual computer program (ie, the data
that my computer actually executes), and the code that we write when
we program.
I misunderstood then. I thought you meant it would be a program
that actually did something. Just for grins I made a file with 1 byte
in it. The byte contained the hex value 0x01. I made it executable and
tried to run it. My system says - cannot execute binary file.
Therefore this integer is not a program. While the above may be true in
some cases it is not *always* a true statement.
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 22:23 -0500, Ross
Vandegrift wrote:
Here's the thing though (and this will become more clear in my next
paragraph) - a representation of a song/picture/novel/etc *does not
function* as a song/picture/novel/etc. A computer program is unique
in this aspect - it IS its integral representation.
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? What you're doing is called reverse
syllogism.
There are cases when a reverse syllogism is a valid argument. In
particular, this is a true statement:
All programs are an integer. That is an
integer, therefor it is a
program.
Of course, I never said it was necessarily a useful
program.
The problem I see with making a distinction is an epistimological one.
How can you ever tell the difference? [1]
I think I might write a piece of software that demonstrates this.
I've been thinking about. It's very easy to write a shell script that
prints the integer a program makes.
But I couldn't find anything that does the reverse, because the vast
majority of integers almost certainly don't do anything interesting.
But in principle it should be easy.
Nope, never heard of it. I thought an integer *was* an arithmetic
statement ;-)
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!
No - I too accept copyrighting of software for pragmatic reasons. The
reasons you identifed are really good ones. It's also the status quo
and it's really hard to get by otherwise.
I just find this to be a very difficult arguement to resolve. When
someone asked about a distinction I've thought about a lot, I thought
I might stick my idea out into the world ::-)
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.
I am a programmer, though not professionally at this point. My
degree is in mathematics, philosophy, and computer science. I guess
you've also figured I'm strong on the philosophy ::-)
I don't deny the creativity in software development at all. I'm just
busy being creative in other ways right now!
[1] You know some logic - are you familiar with the proof of Godel's
Incompleteness Theorem? If so, we're at the point after arithmetic
has been Godel-numbered: we can no longer distinguish between an
integer and an arithmetic statement. --
Ross Vandegrift
ross(a)lug.udel.edu
"The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who
make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians
have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine
man in the bonds of Hell."
--St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, Book II, xviii, 37
Yeah, you can't trust those mathematicians ;-)
--
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