Re: Against DRM 2.0
2006/5/23, David Mattli wrote:
There are two prevaling views of software which I have seen. The view
that software is the opposite of hardware, anything which is in binary
format and the view that software is executable code. The former view
is the most inclusive and the one (in my understanding) held by DD's.
The latter is the one held by you. To better understand the former
view I recommend you read this article:
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/anarchism.html
I know that article (by Stallman's lawyer).
But the question is very easy: any lawyer knows there is a big
difference between
corpus mysthicum (the artwork/the code) and corpus mechanicum (the
carrier/the file).
The copyrightable work is only the artwork/the code!
Only if *the code* is the same, there is a violation of copyright: you
can obtain the same functions with two different languages. Only
patents forbid this, because patents forbid to copy an idea.
It seems that Debian considers music and images as software:
*components* of a software.
This is a great error: for example, a free software can use "CC
no-derivative" images with any problem, because the code (the
software) is under a license and images are under another license.
There isn't incompatibility between the licenses because an image is
not a software, *it is not a component of the code* (you can write a
book under verbatim copying with images under a free license: there
isn't any incompatibility).
So I don't understand why songs, images. etc. must follow a software definition.
I think that any lawyer will belie me.
Max
Reply to: