From cphil@cphil.net  Sat Nov  3 16:13:59 2001
From: cphil@cphil.net (Philippe Coulonges)
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 11:13:59 -0500
Subject: [Patents] Re: object code.
In-Reply-To: <000b01c163fb$842a7280$418e193e@oemcomputer>
References: <200111021901.OAA09833@world.std.com> <01110300064801.14191@francesca.cphil.net> <000b01c163fb$842a7280$418e193e@oemcomputer>
Message-ID: <01110311135900.19454@francesca.cphil.net>

Le Vendredi  2 Novembre 2001 19:07, Nick Fleming a crit :
> Philippe Coulonges wrote :
> > That decision was right, there are no ideas disclosed in object codes.
>
> > Source codes are ideas and as such can't be patented and can't be 
restricted
> > from researches. Let us contribute in order to fund our best advocates to
> > defend that point of view.
>
>     That was my first thought too. Then I realised that modern object files
> can
> contain so much stuff, especially files with debugging and browsing
> information
> in them that they could easily be converted to a more human readable form,
> even source code. However, because of widespread use of macro's and
> preprocessors and even errors in software, I think it is more correct to
> say that object files may not contain a complete description of an idea or
> algorithm.

I disagree. It does contain that complete description. Otherwise the program 
could not run. But it does not disclose it. For, has it has been noted, there 
may be a long way from an object code to the idea. You have to search that 
idea, possibly with sophiticated tools.

The important point being the admittance that the ideas in fact dwell in the 
source code, and the benefits we can get from this.
- protection of disclosure under free speech
- legalization of research of ideas by mean of reverse engineering
- a strong argument against software patents.

We have to admit a limit between the ideas that need to stay free and the 
implementation on a stupid machine. The source code/object code limit seems 
natural to me.

CU
CPHIL


