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).
On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:52:01AM +1100, Don Sanders wrote:
> 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).
This doesn't make sense -- the Judge decided that the apple roms were not
eligible for copyright protection because they weren't a translation of
the source code. He didn't decide that the weren't a translation but
that they were still eligible for protection.
> 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.
My guess would be that the apple roms didn't get copyright protection
because to be compatible with the apple roms you had to make an exact
copy -- the roms were the ABI, and they were being sold as hardware
by Apple. This would mean that the roms were a functional work and not
a literary work.
That's what makes sense to me based on the arguments presented in the
case, but that doesn't quite agree with the way the judge expressed
his opinion.
--
Raul
Reply to: