Hmm...there is a part of your argument that is appealing in a conceptual sense, and I think it would be correct to say that Copyright law has allowed for distinctions between the compiled program and source code. For example, one could refer to source code as a literal aspect of software and at least parts of the compiled program's non-literal aspects (e.g., user interface). With the use of IDE's to compile (especially for graphical user interfaces) programs, one could argue that the non-literal aspect (certainly some of it) of a program is machine generated. Even so, this may just be a modern path to the same point Copyright law already has arrived at from litigation and allegations in the 1990's involving Microsoft, Apple, Lotus, and a couple of others.
Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 9 Feb 2004, Ruth A. Kramer wrote: > > Alexander Terekhov scripsit: > > > > > 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. > > I may be off the mark, but to me, part of the implied "question" > (perhaps in an earlier post?) is whether a compiled program is a > derivative work of the compiler? > > IANAL, but in my understanding it is not. It is, however, a derived > work of the source code, IIUC. > > Randy Kramer > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
