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

["Pedro A.D.Rezende" <prezende@unb.br>]

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
> thing."
> ----
>
> The fellow really needs to go to clinic.
>
> regards,
> alexander.
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  /____\
?http://www.cic.unb.br/docentes/pedro/sd.htm
--------------------------------------------