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

[JEDIDIAH]

On 2009-02-03, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> On 2009-02-03, Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote:
>>> In gnu.misc.discuss 7 <website_has_email@www.enemygadgets.com> 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.

...nope. Just a less than straightforward way of saying you're clueless.

>
>>    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++)

   What you think on this matter doesn't really matter and those that
are relevant have no interest in making copyright any less draconian.
They rather profit from stupid ideas derived from the Berne convention
and it's friends.

>
> , even though contained in these boring copyright bits of code, is not,
> of itself, copyright because it falls beneath the threshold of
> creativity.
>
>> [deletia]
>
> Who's she?
>


-- 
        Nothing quite gives you an understanding of Oracle's         |||
        continued popularity as does an attempt to do some          / | \ 
        simple date manipulations in postgres.