quote:
As for the copyright, I may have confused it with trademark. But no explanation of copyright and patents is being made in Calum's article, nor is any difference between the two shown, and as such I see no immediate basis in the claim that "copyright addresses the needs of software much more adequately".
thank you for bringing this up, if i have time i will try to address this in the article however it is intended to alert people to the issue, not to be a full explanation of the patent/copyright issue. That would take a lot longer than i am willing to type and than most readers would be prepared to read. If they are interested there are many resources on the 'net they can go and look at, some of which i link to under the article.
your contention that "no explanation" is made in the article however i feel is wrong. A cursory explanation is attempted. Whether you feel it to be inadequate or incorrect, i believe it to at least exist.
and as for my not backing up what i said about copyrights, again a cursory explanation is given. Software is a literary work. Literary works get protected by copyright, as do works of art (another valid description of software). Software however is not invention (although, like art and literature it contains a huge element of inventive thought etc). Software is the medium. It is the invention. The inventor of "the book" might get a patent, the inventor of "the record" might get a patent, the inventor of "the radio" might get a patent, but the "inventor of the music and words contained in the books and records and broadcast on the radio have not invented anything, they are simply utilising inventions that already exist. Therein lies the inherent difference.
Sadly many people are too greedy to admit this obvious distinction.
