> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Alternatively, you might want to argue that computer programs are not > > copyrightable at all [based on arguments analogous to the one you're > > presenting now].
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 11:50:32AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > The execution isn't, any more than the cycle of an engine is > copyrightable. The code is. In other words, the creative expression > is, but the function is not. I agree with you here. > So execution of code is not protected by copyright any more than any > other machine is. Running some code doesn't interact with the > creative parts, only the functional parts, so that's not protected by > copyright[1]. This is old news. I disagree with you here. > [1] I'm being a bit fast and loose here in not dealing with quines or > programs that print poetry. In that case, it's not the running > program that is protected, but the output of that program which is > a duplication and transmission of a creative work. I agree with you here. -- Raul
