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

[Hyman Rosen]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Are you sure, on this one?

Yes. See 
<http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightCompendium/chapter_0300.asp>

    321.03 Relationship between source code and object code.
    The Copyright Office considers source code and object code
    as two representations of the same computer program. For
    registration purposes, the claim is in the computer program
    rather than in any particular representation of the program.

> I mean, this doesn't apply to book translation.

That's because book translation is a significant work of
authorship carried out by a human, and translation to binary
code is a mechanical process carried out by a program.

> Sorry, I can't work this out!

Law is a man-made artifact. It doesn't have to meet criteria
of mathematical consistency. You have to accept it as a given.

> 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.

How does that follow? You can do that only the source copy was
legally made and conveyed to you. If you buy one copy of a DVD
in a store, that doesn't give you the right to have multiple
illegally made copies of the same DVD.