Steve Lhomme wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Greg London" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Steve Lhomme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2001 5:30 PM > Subject: Re: binary restrictions? > > | Steve Lhomme wrote: > | > | A binary is a derived work. > | > > | > Are you sure of that ? When you compile > | > you USE the code not MODIFY it. > | > There's no derivation. Otherwise using > | > a software and changing the default > | > settings would be a derived work... > |
> | > | converting source code to binary is in > | effect a *translation* from one language > | to another. > > That makes good sense. But in this case, > why is their different rules for > source code and binary versions of a > work in most open-source licenses ? I > mean if it's a derived work, the rules > applied are the same one of a derived > work. whoah, wait, there are not different LAWS for open source software versus novels. They both follow copyright law. The original question was whether or not compiling source code was "USE" or "DERIVED WORK" in the eyes of the LAW. Which is a separate issue from why open source LICENSES treat source code and binaries differently. The LAW says the copyright holder retains all rights to derived works. Compiling is a derived work. Therefore LICENSES do not have to grant rights to binaries. why open source licenses treat them differently is a separate issue. But the original question basically was whether or not a software author has the right to restrict binaries in the first place. I think copyright law says authors are given the right to control binary versions of their source code. Greg -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
