[Patents] Re: source vs binary.

[Jean-Jacques de Jong jean-jacques_de-jong@hp.com]

Nick Fleming wrote:
> 
> Jean-Jacques de Jong wrote:
> 
> >You must distinguish between source code and binary code. Distribution
> >of binary code clearly falls within the scope of a patent, even in
> >Europe. The question is what happens with the distribution of source
> >code.
> >
> 
> Why should there be a distinction between binary and source ?
> Many languages are interpreted rather than compiled, and
> modern executables usually contain enough debugging information
> to be viewed + understood (if not completely)  with a dissassembler.

Simply because source code is human readable whereas binary code is not.
The source code is a human readable expression of the operation of a
program. The teachings of a patent are meant to be disseminated: someone
cannot be sued for doing that. The distribution of source code of a
patented program is only another means of disseminating the technical
teachings.

Source code is to software what detailed plans are to a device.

> ...
> Software therefore, must be an expression of an idea, (and covered by 
> copyright) 
> rather than an invention in its own right.
> 

That's another battle. We must now admit that software is patentable and
find a way to distribute open source software without risk.

JJJ