[Patents] Re: [Patents] Re: source vs binary.

[Nick Fleming marmalade@x-stream.co.uk]

Dear All,
        I was only pointing out that the boundaries
between forms of software are not distinct, as 
wollny@cns.mpg.de put it :

" "source" and "binary"  describe only a state of
    abstraction of the description of an algorithm."

It still means that interpreted languages such as
TCL and PERL have to be distributed openly,
in human readable form. For these languages
the boundry between source and binary is irrelevant
- the source code IS the program. That is why I believe
that making laws to protect one FORM of software is
wrong - and therefore the EPO's decision to allow
patents on BINARIES is wrong. Anyone want to
pass a law banning interpreted languages to make
the law more clear ? (No e-mails please I'm JOKING!)
    Greg Aharonian and Jean-Jacques de Jong are right
though - we're stuck with software patents (for now)
and need to find a way to work within the legal system
to make them fair for everybody. Having said that,
I agree with Bernard Lang on one point: Just because
there is a law on something doesn't necessarily make
it right. Otherwise, if a government made hanging children
under four years old legal, we'd all agree it was fair..right ??

    Note to the 'anti-everything' brigade : Patents, when
applied correctly, are bloody useful. They allow large
companies to do business without parasitic companies
draining them of funds. Patents also allow small
companies some protection from large aggressive
companies from stealing market share
But, as I've pointed out in past e-mails, because of
the nature of software, patents just do not quite work
in practice for programs.
(..at least..not yet anyway..:-)

Regards,

NickF.