I think copyright is vastly superior to patent, especially considering some
of the idiotically vague patents that the government has allowed recently
(like the "one click" thing that Amazon patented.) I also like the equation
of software source with literature, because then source code is Speech,
protected by the first amendment. I think this argument has used to protect
the right of authors to export information on cryptography as long as the
source isn't compiled - but I may be wrong on that. I say, software is
literature, definitely not munitions.
Vaughn Treude
On Thursday 22 January 2004 09:55, you wrote:
> As someone alluded to earlier, I agree that the whole problem of vendor
> lock-in results from the application of copyright law to software source
> code, which is ludicrous. Copyright law was developed to protect authors of
> literary art, not software. Software is more like a machine than like
> literature. Yet there is a whole separate debate over whether to allow
> software patents. Personally I think patents for software also are stupid,
> and dilute the efficacy of patent protection for real inventions. What is
> needed is a separate body of law to protect software intellectual property,
> one that recognizes the distinct nature of software and its related
> industry, which did not exist at the time copyright and patent laws were
> developed. This would be an excellent agenda for the FSF to promote, and I
> think more likely to succeed long-term than the commune approach to
> software development.
> --
> Phil Mattison
> Ohmikron Corp.
> 480-722-9595 ext.1
> 602-820-9452 Mobile
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)