Re: Object code vs source code
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 04:49:19PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> > 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/unrep14
> >97.html?query=%22source%22%20and%20%22code%22#disp5
> >
> > Australian Federal court of appeals:
>
> ....
>
> > <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.
>
> In contexts where that precedent is considered valid [are there any?],
Yes the case in question is one example where this precedent is considered
valid. As my legal associates keep telling me courts won't decide
hypotheticals, which means each decision is based on the facts of the
individual case.
But since this is the Australian Federal court of appeals I would *guess*
this sets an important precedent for the entire country.
> you
> can make as many copies as you want of *any* object code and distribute
> them to whoever you please -- there's no copyright protection for them.
I was wondering about this too. It's definitely something worth looking into,
if I can find one I'll ask a lawyer what the story is tomorrow (or at least
some time this week).
> Have fun,
That's good advice I'll try my best.
Bye for now,
Don.
Reply to: