[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

From: 7
Subject: Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:07:39 GMT
User-agent: KNode/0.7.2

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> 7 wrote:
>> If I were proud of my method, I would not want anyone
>  > to use it without copyright protecting it
> Methods cannot be copyrighted. They can be patented.
> Statements like this will cause even more confusion in this group.
> Please stop making them.

Really fool?
You made whole speeches a minute ago and fooled everyone!

Read again and replace method with composition.
And weep if all you have is some semantics left over to bite into...

>> The output of GCC are code structures that have been hand coded
>> by someone with copyright over the way its been put together.
>> When gcc produces its output, that output is legally protected
>> by copyright because it embodies their hand crafted work.
> Please see <>, for example:
>      A ?derivative work,? that is, a work that is based on
>      (or derived from) one or more already existing works,
>      is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law
>      calls an ?original work of authorship.?
> The consistent (and apparently deliberate) error made by the FSF is
> to disregard the "original work of authorship" requirement.

Wrong fool!

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. 

Very often I look at how others have implemented the switch statement.
Some are brilliant shortcuts. Some are just average brilliant. Others
are mediocre. And a few down right stupid.

If I were proud of my method, I would not want anyone to use it without
copyright protecting it, especially if I felt (and other agree) that
my solution is better than anyone elses. Thats creative work.
After that point, it doesn't matter how a compiler mixes and mashes
the output, the structure of how the switch statement got implemented
will contain my brilliant piece of assembler arranged like poetry
is a particular sequence and then copied over and over again for each
ocurance of the switch statement. That original arragement template didn't
discover itself! That is the original work of authorship.

In other words, the arangement of assembler is like arragement
of passages in a musical score - and if I have copyright, then
no one should be using that particular arrangement without
some acknowledgement to copyright.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]