> On 2/17/07, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Per this principle, it would seem that only source code and > > hand-crafted object code would be governed by copyright, since > > compilation is also an automated process.
> Well, compilation is probably equivalent to "translation", which is > specifically included in the Act as forming a derivative work. I would hope that courts will hold that "translation" still means what it originally meant -- the creative process of converting a work from one language to another where one has to choose how to map the concepts behind a work to the most appropriate concept in a different language. Clearly translating Jabberwocky into German is creative in a way that compiling the Linux kernel from C to x86 binary is not. Interestingly, if you are right, then what online translation services like babelfish (that allow you to see a web site in another language) do is probably illegal as they create derivative works without permission of the copyright holder. It's easy to argue that putting up a web site grants people implicit permission to copy and render it so that they can see it, but much harder to argue that it gives them the right to create a derivative work. (Of course, you could argue fair use.) As far as I know, no court has addressed this issue. But I think the sensible thing is to hold that "translation", in copyright law, is meant as an example of one type of creative process that could create a derivative work, not that any process that can be argued to be translation (whether creative or not) automatically makes the result a work for copyright purposes. But you never know. DS - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/