"The whole "software is math" argument is old and debunked. Anything which requires creativity and careful analysis, and the investment therein, is a potentially valuable addition to human knowledge. In exchange for investing in such a thing, there should be the potential to protect your investment from copycats without resorting to keeping it a secret."
seems to support using Copyrights instead of Patents. Knowledge shouldn't be patented, right? Perhaps copyrighted (if published), but not patented.
I'm not sure that "software is math" is really debunked anyways, but honestly, I never found that argument that compelling in the first place. I've always like "software is speech" - it is a literal series of 1's and 0's representing language, right? Just because both humans and machines can interpret that language doesn't make it any less a language. And NO language is patentable - expressions created within that language are COPYRIGHTABLE, but ought not be patented. It seems to me that we can still encourage creativity and innovation without allowing people who truly don't grok what software even is (voodoo magix?!?!?) to completely mis-classify what software actually is.
I know not everyone will agree with me, but for those of us that actually spend all day / night writing in programming languages, how do you view this interpretation?