In gnu.misc.discuss JEDIDIAH <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
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).
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
