Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: A Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure license RGPL (EDITED spelling)

How is this a hole? The copyright for the output of a program is owned by the person running the program and the owner of the copyright for the data that is being effected by the program.

For instance: if I sing a song into a recorder on my computer and use a program to save it as an mp3, I own the copyright for the data that the program created. Now if the program has patents for the methods that it uses to create the file based upon my music, I may owe the patent owner a licensing fee, but that is different than copyright.

Copyright for software only deals with the code that created the software, not with what the software creates or changes.

()-()
 \"/
  `

p.s. I am not a lawyer... these are only my stupid opinions... yadayadayada

Comment on Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: A Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure license RGPL (EDITED spelling)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OT: A Modest Proposal for a GNU infrastructure license RGPL (EDITED spelling) by mdupont (Scribe) on Jun 20, 2002 at 14:52 UTC
Look at the current fears of the GCC of a non-free backend. There are tools that can dump the source code and then process it outside of the GCC, thus creating a non-free plug in. That is the whole I am talking about. mike	[reply]
Re^6: OT: A Modest Proposal ... by ignatz (Vicar) on Jun 20, 2002 at 15:09 UTC
Using an application to munge on a file doesn't change the copyright of that file. This doesn't sound like a loophole in copyright, it just sounds like an example of good ol' fashioned theft IMNSHO. ()-() \"/ `	[reply]
Re: Re^6: OT: A Modest Proposal ... by mdupont (Scribe) on Jun 20, 2002 at 15:26 UTC
Look, the point is that I cannot get support from all the compiler and interpreter authors if all the work they put into creating a parse tree can just be taken from them and used by a third party to create non free backends, right? At least from the GCC. It is not about changing the copyright, it is about keeping the gcc from being abused and turned into just a parse or just a code generator by a third party. This is a limitation of use not of copyright. It is an end user license agreement. mike	[reply]