At 12:08 AM 11/17/2000 -0500, Doug Meerschaert wrote:
>lizard wrote:
>
>> I see one issue already. You state that 'software' is not IP. This is,
>> frankly, wrong. Source code (unless opened) is copyrighted material, as
>> is the compiled binary. What cannot be copyrighted (though it can be
>> patented since the USPO is run by brain-dead cauliflower) is/are
>> software concepts.
>
>I was stating that software is not what I call "Real IP." Those who
>came up with the idea of copyright didn't intend for software,
>specifically, to be covered.
>
Well, they also didn't intend TV and radio and movies to be covered, as
they lived a few centuries before they were invented...
It seems to me that a specific computer program can, and should, be covered
by copyright, unless the developed chooses to open source it. (I am utterly
opposed to granting patents on algorithms or 'business processes', gack!)
It is a unique expression of an idea, when taken as a whole. So long as
anyone can re-express the idea uniquely, copyrighting source code (and the
executable output) is, IMO, wholly within both the letter AND the spirit of
copyright law. (Though I think that the copyright on the binaries ought to
expire within 10 years, not 95! 'Abandonware' has no legal meaning, but
perhaps it SHOULD.)
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
