[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
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?

No. But this one is enough to expose the incompetence of self-aggrandizing, sophist, self-serving lawyers and lawmakers.

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

The fellow really needs to go to clinic.


In the world GNUspeakers are set to build, you are the one who needs to go. If you want nothing to do with such endeveour, go troll somewhere elese.

Prof. Pedro Antonio Dourado de Rezende  /\
Ciencia da Computacao (61)3072702-212  /  \
Universidade de Brasilia, DF, Brasil  /____\

Reply to: