There exists a facinating exploration of these issues @
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/ which came into being after
the while DeCSS debacle and subsequent legal rulings.
Source vs. object seems a legal argument that is far from settled - the
introduction reads:
/
/
/Judge Kaplan subsequently issued a memorandum order
<http://www.eff.org/ip/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20000202_ny_memorandum_order.html>
in which he indicated that executable source code was not subject to
First Amendment protection against prior restraint of speech. This
finding is contrary to that of the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals,
who ruled
<http://www.eff.org/bernstein/Legal/19990506_circuit_decision.html>
in the Bernstein cryptography case that source code is indeed
protected speech. In their decision, The 9th Circuit even quoted
some Scheme code from the declaration
<http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/Legal/960726_filing/HTML/abelson_decl.html>
of MIT Professor Harold Abelson, explaining why source code is an
effective and sometimes preferred means of human communication.
Professor Andrew Appel of Princeton University also filed a
declaration
<http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/Legal/960726_filing/appel.decl>
explaining the importance for computer science of being able to
publish source code. More recently, the 6th Circuit US Court of
Appeals ruled
<http://pacer.ca6.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00a0117p.06>
in the Junger cryptography case that, independent of its functional
significance, the expressive nature of source code affords it First
Amendment protection. /
:-)
ChrisB
stringer wrote:
> I like to argue it to the computer illiterate thus:
>
> Source code is human readable (supposedly!!)
>
> Machine code is what the computer chip understands (whether PC or Mac)
>
> A compiler simply translates from one to the other.
>
> So in reality, its corollary is translating English into another
> language (whether French or German or whatever)
>
> Source code and machine code are really the same thing, just as the
> Count of Monte Christo is the same thing written in English as in French!
>
> Q.E.D.????
>
> At 13:26 16/03/07 +1300, you wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Gabriella Turek wrote:
>> > > With instructions that involve physical properties (such as how to
>> > > cook spaghetti, or how to speak effectively) the instructions alone
>> > > don't get you very far. You need labour and possibly raw materials.
>> > >
>> > > With source (or object) code, the instructions are pretty-much
>> > > everything.
>> >
>> > One could argue that unless you can compile the stuff, you can't do
>> very
>> > much. Compiling is not necessarily straight forward,
>> Well I suppose it all depends on how you define the word "compiling".
>> Launching the compiler to convert source code into object code is as
>> simple as
>> falling off the proverbial log [1], whereas what the compiler does
>> internally
>> to achieve this conversion is, I agree, far from simple. Many Doctorate
>> theses have been won creating and enhancing the process.
>>
>> > although I presume
>> > you could take the src and use it to write something you can compile
>> > yourself.
>> Provided you have the tools and dependencies to do it, you can _always_
>> compile somebody else's code. That's what you are doing whenever you
>> write 'make' to the shell while in the top directory of a source code
>> tree.
>>
>> [1] See Lesson01 in:-
>> ftp://svr-ftp.eng.cam.ac.uk/misc/sawtell_C.shar
>> or locally
>> http://shell.clug.org.nz/~chris/sawtell_C.shar
>>
>> Whilst that was written some 15 years ago it is still relevent today.
>>
>> The point Carl & I are trying to make is that compiling is a fixed
>> mechanical
>> process which does nothing whatsoever to change the fundamental
>> meanings or
>> algorithms expressed in the source code.
>>
>> In the case of the source code the algorithms are expressed in a human
>> readable form, whereas the executable code produced by the compiling and
>> linking processes expresses the identical algorithms in a machine
>> readable
>> form. The actual meaning has not been changed one iota.
>>
>> I would love to know what logical processes the US Congress used to
>> split the
>> hair which allowed it - Congress - to legislate that the source code
>> of a
>> program is free-speech, whereas the executable binary file is not.
>>
>> --
>> CS
>
> STRINGER & SON
> per:
> David J H Stringer
>
> STRINGER & SON, - For all your legal work;
>
> P O Box 1386
> CHRISTCHURCH
> NEW ZEALAND
>
> Phone 64 - 3 - 366 1152
> FAX 64 - 3 - 366 1151
