What if copyright didn't apply to binary executables?

Just have to make a small comment about this opening line:

"By rights, copyright really shouldn’t apply to binary executables, because they are purely “functional” (not “expressive”) works."

This implies that an executable can not be art. I disagree. I point to the very rich demo scene ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoscene ), where procedural algorithms and geometry become beautiful works of art. Coders have size limitations like 4K, 64KB, in whihc they have to produce the best results... so seldom ever do they use 3D meshes that have been pre-created in modeling applications. Every so often you will even find algosrithmic music used.

So, I bite my thumb at that comment. *chomp*

And if you have a Windows machine handy, do have a look at http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=5569 and see what one can do with only 64K... assuming it works for you. (these things can be a tad flaky)

I actually think we need a bigger Linux demo scene, since it's quite small right now.

And even more off topic... 96K first-person-shooter, anyone? http://www.theprodukkt.com/kkrieger

@jacog: Even those guys don't write the binaries directly. At the lowest level they write asm which gets converted to binary. Sure, it's a shorter step than source -> obj -> binary but in your examples the binary still isn't the creative work that is produces directly by the artist.

PS: I don't have any opinion on whether binaries should be copyrightable or not. Just pointing out that your examples don't invalidate the author's assertions IMHO.

Quoting:At the lowest level they write asm which gets converted to binary.

Or they write a loader, and then punch in the decimal codes. Yes, I did this, twenty-mumble years ago. ;-)

So one can copyright the recipe, but not the cake?

Exactly. If the physical cake needs protection, you should patent it.

mmmm, cake