John Cowan wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov scripsit: > > > Why is it a derivative work? I could imagine "a computer" > > (interpreter) that can run "program tarballs". Why simple > > addition of an intermediate step (required to run the > > program) makes something a derivative work? Wouldn't that > > mean that I'll need your permission to use this or that > > compiler (in order to "prepare derivative work")? > > A compiled program is a derivative work of the source code because > it is the result of a transformation of that source code, just as > much as if natural-language text in Polish had been translated to > French.
Note that www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0300.asp <quote> A translation is a rendering of a work from one language to another, as, for example, a work translated from Russian into French, or from German into English. However, transliterations and similar processes by which letters or sounds from one alphabet are converted to another are not copyrightable since the conversion is merely a mechanical act. Thus, merely changing a work from the Cyrillic to the Roman alphabet would not be copyrightable. </quote> To me, compilers (and tools like http://world.altavista.com) do nothing but "transliteration", not "translation" in the legal sense. I may be wrong, of course. > > If there is no compiled version, and you interpret the source code > directly, then there certainly is no derivative work. I think the same applies to the compiled program. Conversion by "mere mechanical act" doesn't constitute creation of derivative work. regards, alexander. To: Alexander Terekhov/Germany/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The Copyright Act preempts the GPL Alexander Terekhov scripsit: > Why is it a derivative work? I could imagine "a computer" > (interpreter) that can run "program tarballs". Why simple > addition of an intermediate step (required to run the > program) makes something a derivative work? Wouldn't that > mean that I'll need your permission to use this or that > compiler (in order to "prepare derivative work")? A compiled program is a derivative work of the source code because it is the result of a transformation of that source code, just as much as if natural-language text in Polish had been translated to French. If there is no compiled version, and you interpret the source code directly, then there certainly is no derivative work. If the code is Open Source, then of course you don't need my permission to compile it, as that is implied in the general permission to make copies and derivative works that all Open Source programs must have by the OSD. -- Henry S. Thompson said, / "Syntactic, structural, John Cowan Value constraints we / Express on the fly." [EMAIL PROTECTED] Simon St. Laurent: "Your / Incomprehensible http://www.reutershealth.com Abracadabralike / schemas must die!" http://www.ccil.org/~cowan -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
