Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:02:03 -0400, Chante <udontspa...@never.will.u> > wrote: > >> >> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote >>> >>> compiled software >> >> (you meant, "source code") > > OK, let's try this again. > > Source code is copyrightable. Compiled code *IS ALSO* copyrighted > due to it being a direct translation of the source code that is > copyrighted. Any way you take source code and make some other form > of media-based data out of it is copyrighted. We can keep going > around in this circle if you wish. > This might help: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright
Yes, it did. See, I did not know this: "copyright for computer programs prohibits not only literal copying, but also copying of "nonliteral elements", such as program structure and design." When people (and you, not that you're not a people, hehe) would say "copyright", my mind would think "literal text" (like a book's text). While that has given me a much greater understanding that copyright does afford more protection than I thought, it's still not enough for the most important things, I think: the proprietary technologies upon which the software is built. It would seem that the technologies are free game to be used by anyone cognizant of them, under copyright, as long as they use them in a different way, say in a program with completely different functionality but still using the technology. For instance, pretend that Unicode had not yet been created and that instead, a software company released a word processing program based upon UnicodeTM, a proprietary technology. Copyright would allow all to use UnicodeTM in programs that were not word processors. Patent would disallow this and the company could then capitalize on UnicodeTM in other products.