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

Re: microsoft vs opensource

"Telaman Consultancies" <davidpalmer@westnet.com.au> writes:

> The ever persistent issue of software patents for example, when
> dealing with programming - which is essentially a language - and
> shouldn't, as a means of transmission of knowledge, even have
> copyright attached to it.

Doesn't this prove my point a bit?  Here you say in reference to
software patents that a language shouldn't be copyrighted.  You appear
to be using patent and copyright interchangeably, but that doesn't work.
And language is specifically what copyright is meant to protect, but not
patents.  Stephen King's latest book is copyrighted by him, but not
patented.  An invention, likewise, can be patented, but not copyrighted.
The term "intellectual property" may be acceptable in some cases, but in
the case above I think it is clear why some would call it confusing.


Reply to: