Object code vs source code
FYI a legal precedent that object code is not an adaption of the source code
exists:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/unrep1497.html?query=%22source%22%20and%20%22code%22#disp5
Australian Federal court of appeals:
The decision of Judge 1:
<quote>
I am satisfied that the object codes in the Apple II ROMs are
adaptations,within the meaning of s.31(1)(a)(vi) and s.10(1), of the original
literaryworks constituted by the programmes in source codes. This is, I think,
because they can fairly be described as translations. Transliteration may more
precisely explain what happens, but this is plainly comprehended
within "translation". This term doubtless normally suggests translation from one
language to another, but its ordinary meaning is wider and it is necessary to
apply it with due regard for modern technology. The object codes contained in
the Apple ROMs are a straightforward electronic translation into a materialform
of the source codes, and it would be entirely within ordinary understanding to
say that they are translations of the source code. An indication of the natural
application of the word to the production of an object code is found in the
1979 report of the United States National Commission on New Technological Uses
of Copyright Works (p.21, n.109):
"A source code is a computer program written in any of several programming
languages employed by computer programmers. An object code is the version of a
program in which the source code language is converted or translated into the
machine language of the computer with which it is to be used."
</quote>
Was overridden by the decision of Judge 2:
<quote>
I have reached the conclusion, not without some
hesitation, that the programmes in object code are not adaptations, that is,
translations of the programmes in source code.
</quote>
This confirms my suspicions that the use of the word "translation" in the GPL,
means the same as it does in copyright law that is translation between human
languages. I also consulted a few legal dictionaries that futher strengthened
this view.
BFN,
Don.
Reply to: