Re: Does the ISC license require to reproduce copyrights in debian/copyright ?
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:19:29 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: Does this concern binary distribution: is a compiled version a “copy”? Le Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 10:10:29PM +0200, Francesco Poli a écrit : Why not? I personally think that a compiled copy of the software is indeed a copy. What other term would you use to describe the compiled thing? It is my understanding that a compiled version of the software is a copy of the software (in compiled form). Le Sat, Jul 04, 2009 at 09:45:39AM +1000, Ben Finney a écrit : I think of it more as a translation into another language. It's an automated, mechanical translation though, so unlike most human-language translated works, there's no creativity in the translation step. I am quite undecided between the possible interpretations. But maybe this question was already judged somewhere ? Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Does the ISC license require to reproduce copyrights in debian/copyright ?
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:45:39 +1000 Ben Finney wrote: Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes: On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:19:29 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: [...] Does this concern binary distribution: is a compiled version a “copy”? Why not? I personally think that a compiled copy of the software is indeed a copy. There's little to connect the two forms. If given a bunch of bytes and a bundle of source code, in many cases it would not be easy to say whether one was a compiled version of the other. That makes it rather unlike what most people would mean by “copy”. Wait, wait: I think there's some sort of misunderstanding here between you and me (I am sorry for not being always crystal clear: I am not an English native speaker, hence I sometimes fail to choose the best phrasing to express my thoughts...). I *agree* with you that the compiled form of the software should *not* be called a copy of the source form. What I meant was: IMHO a copy of the compiled form of the software *does* qualify as a copy of the software (in compiled form, obviously, but that doesn't imply that it's not a copy of the same software). Let's bear in mind that we are discussing the following ISC license clause: | Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any ^ | purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above | copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. ^ What Charles was wondering was whether compiled versions are or are not subject to the obligation to be shipped with copyright permission notice. I think that a compiled version of the software is indeed a copy of the software (just in a different form than the source code version). Or, to be more explicit: (a) you get a compiled version of the software by processing the source code of the software (with a compiler): what you get is the same piece of software, just in a different form (b) when binary distribution is in place, a recipient gets a copy of the compiled version: that copy qualifies as a copy of the software (in compiled form). Step (a) is a mechanical transformation that does not create a new distinct work: from a copyright point of view, no derivative work is created, just another form of the same work. Step (b) creates a copy of the compiled form of the work. An example that should clarify further: many people get copies of compiled versions of Microsoft Windows (from retailers, from hardware manufacturers, and so forth): this is commonly described as getting a copy of Windows, even though the source form is jealously kept secret by Microsoft. I hope I clarified what I meant. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpe69v3WYkxk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Does the ISC license require to reproduce copyrights in debian/copyright ?
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:19:29 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: [...] Does this concern binary distribution: is a compiled version a “copy”? Why not? I personally think that a compiled copy of the software is indeed a copy. What other term would you use to describe the compiled thing? It is my understanding that a compiled version of the software is a copy of the software (in compiled form). Have a nice day. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpX2nWuTTkqM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Does the ISC license require to reproduce copyrights in debian/copyright ?
Francesco Poli f...@firenze.linux.it writes: On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:19:29 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: [...] Does this concern binary distribution: is a compiled version a “copy”? Why not? I personally think that a compiled copy of the software is indeed a copy. There's little to connect the two forms. If given a bunch of bytes and a bundle of source code, in many cases it would not be easy to say whether one was a compiled version of the other. That makes it rather unlike what most people would mean by “copy”. I think of it more as a translation into another language. It's an automated, mechanical translation though, so unlike most human-language translated works, there's no creativity in the translation step. What other term would you use to describe the compiled thing? Perhaps a “transformation” is better. It is my understanding that a compiled version of the software is a copy of the software (in compiled form). I think it's instructive that the GPL discusses “form of the work”, not “copy”, for this distinction; perhaps in an effort to be clear about this point. -- \“We should be less concerned about adding years to life, and | `\ more about adding life to years.” —Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 | _o__) | Ben Finney pgpGQyGGG1m8q.pgp Description: PGP signature
