Adrian Colomitchi <acolomitchi@gmail.com> writes:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Ben Finney <ben+freesoftware@benfinney.id.au> wrote:
From that it follows that it's unjust to deny the freedoms that accrue for functional use of a work, merely because the copyright holder doesn't think it has functional use.
My argument is: "since one cannot make a clear distinction between <it's a program> or <it's just data>", then "what the computer does to render/obtain the desired result" should NOT be a criterion in judging the copyrights (or, for the matter at hand, copylefts - still based on copyright laws), or at the very least *should not be the sole or even the main criterion in balancing the rights of the copyright holder and the rights of the consumer*.
This quote from Eben Moglen is relevant: “We can't depend for the long run on distinguishing one bitstream from another in order to figure out which rules apply.” —Eben Moglen, _Anarchism Triumphant_, 1999 I'm arguing, and it appears you agree, that we can't depend on some fixed decision about which purposes are valid for a bitstream in order to determine which freedoms apply indefinitely for future recipients of it. -- \ “Airports are ugly. Some are very ugly. Some attain a degree of | `\ ugliness that can only be the result of a special effort.” | _o__) —Douglas Adams, _The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul_, 1988 | Ben Finney