On 2009-02-03, Alan Mackenzie <[email protected]> wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss 7 <[email protected]> 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.
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.
[deletia]
--
The social cost of suing/prosecuting individuals |||
for non-commercial copyright infringement far outweighs / | \
the social value of copyright to begin with.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
