Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: What happens to the GPL in FPGA & VLSI implementations?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: What happens to the GPL in FPGA & VLSI implementations?
  • Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 17:02:16 +0000

On 20 Mar 2005, at 16:14, drew Roberts wrote:

On Sunday 20 March 2005 10:16 am, Greg London wrote:
drew Roberts said:
Not that I disagree with the analysis or the intention behind it...
but... binaries are a functional strin of 1s and 0s and yet aren't they
considered a copyrighted derivative of the copyrighted source they came
from.

Is this just another special exception to the rules?

No, because the string of 1's and 0's still REPRESENT something
rather than being the THING-ITSELF.

So, a binary is not functional?

It is not. If I have a CD with a binary on it, I can't get it to do anything functional. A binary is instructions for something else to follow in order to perform some functionality. It is the configuration for a universal machine, not a machine itself.

Let's go back to the cookie example. A cookie recipe is not a cook, it just tells a cook how to perform a particular act (baking cookies).

A binary is a text to be "read" by some functional system. It is not itself a functional system. An ASIC (for purposes of this discussion) is a functional system. It is not text to be "read".

It is instead and artistic expression?

Copyrightable work doesn't need to be artistic or expressive. The phrase "expression of an idea" doesn't mean expression in the starving artist sense of emoting or having a unique vision, it just means that you get it out into the world in some tangible form rather than it being a fleeting thought.

To be copyrightable, work just needs to be novel and have taken some nonzero effort to create. And it needs to not be merely functional. ASIC designs seem to fall down on the last point.

I want to understand this thinking both from a reasoned perspective and from
the "that's just what the law says" perspective.

It is reasonable to regard a binary as not being functional, it is just data. The fact that this data can be used by a CPU to bake cookies -uh- run a particular program doesn't make that data functional.

- Rob.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page