Re: How long is it acceptable to leave *undistributable* files in
Joe Moore wrote:
> Michael Poole wrote:
> > See also http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html, which remarks both
> > that the whole of the derivative work must represent an original work
> > of authorship, rather than an arrangement of distinct works, and that
> > mechanical (non-creative, ergo non-copyrightable) transformation of the
> > original does not make a derivative.
> Doesn't this mean that the compiled (in the computer sense) binary is not a
> derivative work of the source? (mechanical transformation from C code to
> ELF executable does not make a derivative?)
> That's an interpretation of law that seems a bit too extreme to be
It's not an interpretation, it's the legal definition of derivative
> 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.