[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: copyright on binary packages

Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.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
>> claim.
>> 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                                       bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: