[free-sklyarov] legal precedent for code as free speech?

[Seth Finkelstein]

Seth David Schoen wrote:
> Since ElcomSoft didn't publish source code, we need the stronger
> finding that all computer programs, whether in source or object form,
> have first amendment protection.

	This part of the DeCSS ruling is very on-point:

"During the trial, Professor Touretzky of Carnegie Mellon University,
as noted above, convincingly demonstrated that computer source and
object code convey the same ideas as various other modes of
expression, including spoken language descriptions of the algorithm
embodied in the code.  Tr. (Touretzky) at 1068-69; Ex. BBE, CCO, CCP,
CCQ.  He drew from this the conclusion that the preliminary injunction
irrationally distinguished between the code, which was enjoined, and
other modes of expression that convey the same idea, which were not,
id., although of course he had no reason to be aware that the
injunction drew that line only because that was the limit of the
relief plaintiffs sought.  With commendable candor, he readily
admitted that the implication of his view that the spoken language and
computer code versions were substantially similar was not necessarily
that the preliminary injunction was too broad; rather, the logic of
his position was that it was either too broad or too narrow. Id. at
1070-71.  Once again, the question of a substantially broader
injunction need not be addressed here, as plaintiffs have not sought
broader relief."

-- 
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  sethf at sethf.com  http://sethf.com
http://www10.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html