Re: Web application licenses

[Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>]

Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:

>> Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
>> > Alternatively, you might want to argue that computer programs are not
>> > copyrightable at all [based on arguments analogous to the one you're
>> > presenting now].
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 11:50:32AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> The execution isn't, any more than the cycle of an engine is
>> copyrightable.  The code is.  In other words, the creative expression
>> is, but the function is not.
>
> I agree with you here.
>
>> So execution of code is not protected by copyright any more than any
>> other machine is.  Running some code doesn't interact with the
>> creative parts, only the functional parts, so that's not protected by
>> copyright[1].  This is old news.
>
> I disagree with you here.

Well, maybe I'm mistaken in some way there.  Can you explain to me why
and how copyright limits me from running a program against the wishes
of the author?

>> [1] I'm being a bit fast and loose here in not dealing with quines or
>>     programs that print poetry.  In that case, it's not the running
>>     program that is protected, but the output of that program which is
>>     a duplication and transmission of a creative work.
>
> I agree with you here.
>
> -- 
> Raul

-- 
Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu