On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 03:27:28 +0200 Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > 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.
Yes: it's not a derivative work, it's the *same* work under a different
representation.
The act of compiling source code into binary does not *add* creative
elements to the original work, hence the law says that this act cannot
*add* copyright holders to the work.
It seems reasonable to me (anyway IANAL).
--
| GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program
Francesco | Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom!
Poli | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO,
| 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0
Attachment:
pgpJvcSu3S0Pn.pgp
Description: PGP signature