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

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

"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...".

I wouldn't be too sure that "set" doesn't have a different meaning to
lawyers than it has to mathematicians or computer scientists.

Anyway, I doubt whether sequence is correct, too - unless you redefine
sequence to include conditional execution and loops.

> Bad laws can not change the nature of the symbolic realm, where
> computer programs exist. For one thing, GNUspeakers know that realm
> better than self-aggandizing, sophist lawmakers and lawyers.

This statement is probably both right and irrelevant.  We're dealing
here with legal aspects of creating a Linux distribution, and therefore
the language and thinking of lawyers does and should have an impact on
the outcome of the discussion...

Regards, Frank
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Reply to: