Re: Object code vs source code
I've been informed that this case did in fact make it all the way to the High
Court of Australia (the highest court in Australia):
COMPUTER EDGE PTY LTD v. APPLE COMPUTER INC. (1986) 161 CLR 171 F.C. 86/017
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/161clr171.html?query=%22source+code%22
Interesting stuff, still researching...
(I include one reply below).
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Don Sanders wrote:
> 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).
Okay, in this case I would maintain that even though the object code is not a
work based on the source code it is still a literary work in its own right, and
the creator of the object code owns the copyright to the object code.
As the object code didn't come with a license it is under no license and hence
permission to modify, distribute, etc it has not been given. (The same as the
previous gnu grep example).
I should note that the copyright lawyer I've been talking to believes that the
object code is a derivative work of the source code but he doesn't have much
time to look into it.
BFN,
Don.
Reply to: