[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386))

In gnu.misc.discuss JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2009-02-03, Alan Mackenzie <> wrote:
>> In gnu.misc.discuss 7 <> wrote:
>>> Hyman Rosen wrote:

>>> Wrong fool!

>> No, I think you might actually be the right one.

>>> As I write the assembler code for how a switch statement is implemented,
>>> then I have copyright over it no matter how it gets subsequently used.
>>> The assembler code for the switch statement is not generated
>>> 'automatically'. The exact sequence is something I have to creatively
>>> interpret and put together reading CPU specification. 

>> The degree of creativity involved in writing a few comparison and
>> conditional/unconditional jump instructions is too low to merit
>> copyright, just as composing the sentence "This is silly." would be.

>    So then, are you going to hold your breath until they reform the Law.

Whitt???  "So"?  That's a non-sequitur if ever I saw one.

>    You may have a long wait since pretty much nobody that owns proprietary
> source code would want to see such a reform put into place. The world is
> chock full of very un-creative software.

Again, totally disconnected with what went before.  There is indeed a
load of boring source code around, but it's nevertheless copyright, as
it should be.  However, the line of code

    for (i = 0 ; i < num_is ; i++)

, even though contained in these boring copyright bits of code, is not,
of itself, copyright because it falls beneath the threshold of

> [deletia]

Who's she?

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]