Ben Finney wrote: > It's the creativity of a work that allows it to be covered by > copyright. Non-creative works -- e.g. a plain listing of the digits of > a mathematical constant -- are generally deemed un-copyrightable. > > I don't see what distinction you're making there with "creative > works". Are you making some distinction between a software work which > happens to be interpreted as a program and a software work which > happens to be interpreted in some other way? I don't think that's a > relevant distinction.
The true distinction is between "aesthetic works", meaning works which are valued for themselves (i.e. you sensually appreciate the work in one form or another) and "utilitarian works", meaning works whose principle value is in how they are used. If the principle value of gcc were its aesthetic appeal (e.g. you like to wallpaper your room with the printout), then it's the same as an aesthetic work like a movie or a song. However, almost no one views gcc that way. It's principle value is *use*: i.e. you compile programs with it. By contrast, there are almost no such "uses" of a movie or a song. They are meant to be rendered to the human senses and appreciated for their own content. This is a real distinction. In licensing terms, the difference is important, because it strongly effects the model of how the software will be created and also how it affects the consumer/user of it. Furthermore, the potential for and value of reuse is quite different. For aesthetic works, re-use is always non-essential, but individual instances are irreplaceable. A parody of Mickey Mouse, for example, has no meaning if it can only exist as a parody of Rudy Rat (some off-brand character created to avoid infringing on Disney's trademarks and copyrights on Mickey). Restricting the parody of the original therefore is directly muzzling freedom of expression. This is distinct from the case of compilers, for example: any compiler than can compile C source code is roughly exchangeable with any other (yes I know there are some incompatibilities -- but the point is that they can always be fixed if there is a desire to do so). The existence of a non-free compiler does not prevent the creation of a free one to replace it. Yet, it can be argued that you do not *need* that parody in the same way that you might need a compiler (not having the aesthetic work does not restrict your abilities to act). So, you can always choose to live without aesthetic works, without being materially damaged, but you are always culturally damaged by that choice, whereas the inability to access utilitarian works only implies the need to create free ones, and has little or no cultural consequences. It's a small step from there to realizing that "freedom" means something different for aesthetic versus utilitarian works. In fact, free licensing is an adequate solution for utilitarian works, but in the end, only better copyright law can fully resolve the problem for aesthetic works. Nevertheless, the needs of licenses for aesthetic works are necessarily different than those for utilitarian works. Cheers, Terry -- Terry Hancock ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
