[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception" |
Date: |
Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:28:33 +0000 (UTC) |
User-agent: |
tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-RELEASE (i386)) |
In gnu.misc.discuss 7 <website_has_email@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Wrong fool!
No, I think you might actually be the right one.
> 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.
The degree of creativity involved in writing a few comparison and
conditional/unconditional jump instructions is too low to merit
copyright, just as composing the sentence "This is silly." would be.
> 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.
If you're talking about coding a switch statement, the creativity is
almost entirely that of designers of the chip's instruction set. Given
that instruction set, there're at most a handful of ways of doing a
switch.
> 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
> in a particular sequence and then copied over and over again for each
> ocurance of the switch statement.
No it won't. The assembler will only exist if the user asks for an
object code listing - hardly ever. And it won't be what you wrote, since
you didn't write in the destinations of the jump instructions; they
derive from the author of the C source.
> That original arragement template didn't discover itself! That is the
> original work of authorship.
Hardly.
> In other words, the arangement of assembler is like arrangement
> 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.
No, your arrangement of "assembler" is is like the F major chord with
suspended G at the beginning of Lennon and McCartney's "Yesterday". You
don't get copyright on a single musical chord devoid of context.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Erik Funkenbusch, 2009/02/01
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception",
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/02/03
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/02/05
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/02/05
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/02/05