Rjack wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Hyman Rosen <hyro...@mail.com> wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably
held to be held by those who have copyright of the source
files, not those who wrote the compiler.
An interesting aside is that the source and executable forms
of a computer program do not have separate copyrights. They
are considered to be the same work for copyright purposes.
They are *not* considered to be the same work for copyright
purposes. One form is considered to be a "translation" of the
other. That makes one a *derivative* work of the other under US
law:
17 USC 101 Definitions.
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in
which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work
consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or
other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original
work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
Just imagine filing a copyright infringement case and asking a jury
to evaluate the "substantial similarity"(a task for the trier of
fact) between source and object code:
------------------------------
(for i = 1; i < 235; i++){
var1 = var2;
var3 = var1 % var4;}
------------------------------
compared with;
------------------------------
111011010011100010011110001010
------------------------------
Hmmmm........
Sincerely,
Rjack :)
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
