[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 <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.
> 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
creativity.
> [deletia]
Who's she?
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Erik Funkenbusch, 2009/02/01
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/02/03
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/02/05
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/02/05
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/02/05