Re: "object code" in the GPL and printed copies

[Alexander Terekhov <alexander.terekhov@gmail.com>]

On 1/18/06, Pedro A.D.Rezende <prezende@unb.br> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Object code is a well established term. GNUspeak is irrelevant.
> >
> > The Copyright Act defines a computer program as"a set of
> > statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in
> > a computer in order to bring about a certain result. " 17 U.S.C.
> > § 101.
>
> The copyright act is WRONG.
>
> A computer program can NEVER be "a SET of statements or
> instructions...", a computer program has to understood as "a SEQUENCE of
> statements or instructions...".

Feel free to submit a patch inserting the word "ordered". Is this the
only grief GNUspeakers have with copyright on computer programs?

Oh, BTW, I like this:

http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=gpl_v3_released

----
Not required to accept the license in order to receive a copy of the
program (no contract is created, still) 183 contract law schemes in
the world...can't standardize globally...RMS statement against global
copyright system. "We use it because its there. BERN + WTO not a good
thing."
----

The fellow really needs to go to clinic.

regards,
alexander.