Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > Alternatively, you might want to argue that computer programs are not >> > copyrightable at all [based on arguments analogous to the one you're >> > presenting now]. > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 11:50:32AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> The execution isn't, any more than the cycle of an engine is >> copyrightable. The code is. In other words, the creative expression >> is, but the function is not. > > I agree with you here. > >> So execution of code is not protected by copyright any more than any >> other machine is. Running some code doesn't interact with the >> creative parts, only the functional parts, so that's not protected by >> copyright[1]. This is old news. > > I disagree with you here.
Well, maybe I'm mistaken in some way there. Can you explain to me why and how copyright limits me from running a program against the wishes of the author? >> [1] I'm being a bit fast and loose here in not dealing with quines or >> programs that print poetry. In that case, it's not the running >> program that is protected, but the output of that program which is >> a duplication and transmission of a creative work. > > I agree with you here. > > -- > Raul -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
