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

[Rjack]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> 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!