> But this is irrelevant. It is enough that _law_ (majority of > existed copyright laws) makes this difference.
What differences the law, made by people who never heard of free software and probably had their pen guided by people from large proprietary software companies, is of little relevance to what we should do here. > Difference, based not > on the structure of work, but on its function, btw. There's not much point in writing a literate program if it's going to be proprietary. Since few copyright suits approach these details anyway, courts probably haven't been called on to split those hairs. Since we interpret the theoritical and deal with solely software and software-related things, it's a problem we have to deal with. > And in some other cases you should not ignore it, even if you > can, because such difference benefits you. That's the argument - should we or should we not ignore it? Just stating your side without evidence isn't useful. ______________________________________________________________________ Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/
