** Sean Kellogg :: > On Friday 19 August 2005 06:47 am, Humberto Massa Guimarães wrote: > > Nope. There are other kinds of transformation that configure > > derivative works: translation to other languages is one of them, > > and it does not involve copying parts at all. > > Translation is certainly considered copying. The text isn't the > issue, it's the expression that is being copied. What you seem to > be talking about is "literal copying". But in the eyes of the > law, translation is considered copying of the underlying > expression. > > -Sean
Sean, it may be that we are in different tunes because of our different jurisdictions here (I know you are a law student). But down here, non-automated translation is *not* considered copy... it's a transformation that generates a derivative work. Now, your _automated_ (gcc, babelfish) translation is considered a copy, but I was going for the non-automated type. And the DFSG require the possibility of making derivative works. -- Massa
