Francesco Poli wrote: > On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:12:00 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote: > > I'd argue it is a translation and therefore a derivative work. > > I was under the impression that a "mechanical" (i.e.: automated, without > any new creative input from the compiler user) translation didn't create > a derivative work, just a different form of the same work. > Compare with photocopying a piece of paper.
Good point. Under US law you're probably right. Other countries sometimes group anything that's not a literal reproduction under 'derivative work'. In those jurisdictions (mine -the Netherlands- for one) you then have non-creative and creative derivative works. If I compile source into binary, I have a non-creative derivative. If I edit the source and compile it, I have a creative derivative. The difference is that I have a copyright on the latter but not on the former, thanks to my creative additions to the latter. So the question is how "derivative" is defined under local law. Arnoud -- Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/ Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
