|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > June 2004 > Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in
|
|
| Joe Moore 2004-06-17, 11:50 pm |
| Michael Poole wrote:
> See also http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html, which remarks both
> that the whole of the derivative work must represent an original work
> of authorship, rather than an arrangement of distinct works, and that
> mechanical (non-creative, ergo non-copyrightable) transformation of the
> original does not make a derivative.
Doesn't this mean that the compiled (in the computer sense) binary is not a
derivative work of the source? (mechanical transformation from C code to
ELF executable does not make a derivative?)
That's an interpretation of law that seems a bit too extreme to be
reasonable.
It would (if correct) make a lot of current copyright infringement (or as it
is sometimes called "software piracy") legitimate. Since I'm not
distributing the source code (which is the original work of authorship),
just a mechanical transformation of it (ergo non-copyrightable), giving
MSOffice.exe to all my friends is not a copyright violation?????
--Joe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Michael Poole 2004-06-17, 11:50 pm |
| Joe Moore writes:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>
> Doesn't this mean that the compiled (in the computer sense) binary is not a
> derivative work of the source? (mechanical transformation from C code to
> ELF executable does not make a derivative?)
I believe that for the purposes of copyright, mechanical translations
are protected the same ways as the original work. You raise a good
point, though; I have seen some analyses that do treat a compiled
version of code as a derivative work. As usual, I am willing to be
convinced by solid references or arguments.
Michael Poole
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Josh Triplett 2004-06-17, 11:50 pm |
| Joe Moore wrote:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>
> Doesn't this mean that the compiled (in the computer sense) binary is not a
> derivative work of the source? (mechanical transformation from C code to
> ELF executable does not make a derivative?)
>
> That's an interpretation of law that seems a bit too extreme to be
> reasonable.
> It would (if correct) make a lot of current copyright infringement (or as it
> is sometimes called "software piracy") legitimate. Since I'm not
> distributing the source code (which is the original work of authorship),
> just a mechanical transformation of it (ergo non-copyrightable), giving
> MSOffice.exe to all my friends is not a copyright violation?????
Indeed. For that matter, disassemblers perform mechanical translations,
so if the disassembled code were not a derived work of the executable,
that would greatly aid most reverse-engineering efforts.
- Josh Triplett
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Thiemo Seufer 2004-06-17, 11:50 pm |
| Joe Moore wrote:
> Michael Poole wrote:
>
> Doesn't this mean that the compiled (in the computer sense) binary is not a
> derivative work of the source? (mechanical transformation from C code to
> ELF executable does not make a derivative?)
Correct.
> That's an interpretation of law that seems a bit too extreme to be
> reasonable.
It's not an interpretation, it's the legal definition of derivative
work.
> It would (if correct) make a lot of current copyright infringement (or as it
> is sometimes called "software piracy") legitimate. Since I'm not
> distributing the source code (which is the original work of authorship),
> just a mechanical transformation of it (ergo non-copyrightable), giving
> MSOffice.exe to all my friends is not a copyright violation?????
Why do you think so? The result still falls under the same copyright
protection as the original has. It's just a different representation.
Thiemo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|