Re: copyright on binary packages
Matthew Palmer <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 06:40:38PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
>> I've been "pestered" by the people who pay for the development of
>> several of our packages to add a blurb claiming copyright on the
>> *binary* packages we build and distribute. Binary packages built
>> and distributed by others are not to be covered by this copyright
>> Now this strikes my as pretty off-the-wall and impractical, but I
>> am wondering whether anyone knows of "prior art" in this area. If
> I think it goes beyond impractical -- I believe it's not legally
> enforceable. The transformation from source to binary form does not contain
> any elements of creative input; the process itself is trivially
> reproducable, and with the same set of inputs you will produce identical
> output every time.
But the copyright is still held by the author of the source.
Additionally, a repository of packages, with particular selections of
quality software, is copyrightable in the same way that an anthology
or magazine is copyrightable.
Brian Sniffen email@example.com