Lists Home |
Date Index |
correct. here's the physical analogy:
einstein owned the copyright to his papers on relativity, but not a
patent on e=mc2
i think that's a very fair situation, and in fact it's something
inherently understood by standards bodies and indeed the oss movement.
Alan Gutierrez wrote:
>* Ronald Bourret <email@example.com> [2005-06-06 20:19]:
>>M. David Peterson wrote:
>>>What I find interesting is that you can't just state that its because
>>>we're writing code and not working with physical objects and its
>>>because of this that our world is different. The literature world,
>>>while not dealing with patents per se', are definitely dealing with
>>>copyrights and plagiarism.
>>Not sure about the physical world, but there's a huge difference between
>>the software world and the literature world. There's a very limited
>>number of reasonable ways to loop through an array of integers and add 1
>>to each value. There's a huge number of reasonable ways to say, "The
>>lake is blue." The first shouldn't be patentable. The second should be
> They should both be copyrightable. The loop and the phrase.
> They are in fact both copyrightable. Both are protected by
> copyright the moment they are fixed to a medium. Both are
> considered literary works by the U.S. Copyright Office.
>Alan Gutierrez - firstname.lastname@example.org
> - http://engrm.com/blogometer/index.html
> - http://engrm.com/blogometer/rss.2.0.xml
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
tel;cell:+61 411 287 530