[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

From: Rjack
Subject: Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:39:28 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Hyman Rosen <> wrote:
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably held to be held by those who have copyright of the source files, not those who wrote the compiler.

An interesting aside is that the source and executable forms of
a computer program do not have separate copyrights. They are considered to be the same work for copyright purposes.

They are *not* considered to be the same work for copyright
purposes. One form is considered to be a "translation" of the other.
That makes one a *derivative* work of the other under US law:

17 USC 101 Definitions.

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a
work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other
modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of
authorship, is a “derivative work”.

That sounds, .... er complicated! You mean, if you validly hold an executable copy of a (non-free) program, and you "somehow" get hold of the source for it, then you're entitled to keep that source code.

Are you sure, on this one? I mean, this doesn't apply to book translation. If a publisher is authorised to publish an edition of a book written in English, that wouldn't give him any rights to publish somebody else's German translation.

Sorry, I can't work this out!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]