Re: Inconsistencies in our approach

[Dylan Thurston <dpt@math.harvard.edu>]

In article <[🔎] 20030803223947.GC21894@jbj2.jbj.homelinux.com>, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> Here is my classification, which handles this better:
> 
> A piece of information, whether in analog, digital or other
> form, is a program if it is intended to directly control the
> actions of a computer, other than by simply holding a pure
> description of its other contents.
> ...
> A piece of information, which is not a program and whose entire
> contents is primarily intended for human consumption is either
> computer documentation or non-computer literature, depending on
> its subject.

I have no idea how to apply this definition: you use "directly
control" and "primarily intended" in ways that are exceedingly
unclear.  The way you use these definitions later makes it seem to me
that any interactive program must be considered primarily intended for
human consumption...  What about: Interactive fiction?  Screensavers?
Arcade games?  Emacs?

Have you looked at the Gallery of CSS Descramblers
<http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/> and thought about its
consequences?

Peace,
	Dylan