Source code as free speech?

I wonder if there should be a difference in this case between compiled and uncompiled code.

Source code should be equivalent to a do-it-yourself text written by someone. Like a recipe. Now, whether that is a recipe for cookies, or a recipe for disaster... That would fall under existing rules, wouldn't it? Or, at any rate, under the pre-existing controversy.

As for compiled code... I would have to say that it would not be quite the same, since you cannot readily figure out exactly what it does. Source code is like a recipe. Compiled code is like a little welded box with a button on the outside. Distributing recipes for oatmeal/cookies/poison/napalm/ is one thing, distributing machines that make oatmeal/cookies/poison/napalm is significantly different.

Short version: I think SOURCE code could be a form of free speech, but not executable machine code. (I know, fuzzy borderline at assembly. <shrug>)

I thought the definition of free speech was the freedom to verbally express yourself to others. When such expressions are printed the freedom is defined as "freedom of the press" . Perhaps a new definintional phrase should be coined for "freedom of the source code". ;)

freedom of the press implys mass ditribution of news. if you write someone a letter, its content is not protected by freedom of press but by freedom of speach.
if you write 100 letters (or 1 letter for that matter)with the intent of inciting people to commit an act of violence or other crime, you go to jail.
ive only had time to read the thesis over once but it looks like what the supreme court is saying is, your free to write any kind of source code or object code you want, and neither the recording industry or anyone else can or should stop you. if you distribute this source code for the purpose of encouraging or allowing others to pirate dvds or other illegal acts , you go to jail.
seems fair to me. thats why they call it the underground.

The also said each of these acts of intent, must be judged seperatly, on the purpose and merits of the code and they dont concider themselves qualified to do that, so it looks like we might find new depatments opening in our judicial branch. let hope we hire highly qualified, ethical people who arn't also on a private sector payroll.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tedob1
freedom of the press implys mass ditribution of news. if you write someone a letter, its content is not protected by freedom of press but by freedom of speach.
if you write 100 letters (or 1 letter for that matter)with the intent of inciting people to commit an act of violence or other crime, you go to jail.

---

hmmmm makes sense to me I stand corrected. I stand by my main point however.....source code can hardly fall under freedom of speech unless the code involved has output that falls under this jurisdiction. And then its the output(text,audio file,whatever) that is protected not the code itself.The code is protected by copywrite laws and cannot itself be considered "speech"

Thats why i thought the argument was Brilliant. They went so far as to bring perl poetry in to demonstrate that source is a means of communication between programmers.