Re: What makes software copyrightable anyway?

[Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com>]

On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >On 5/11/05, Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> wrote:
> >>Nope. Binaries are the same work as (the anthology of) their sources, in the eye of the Law 9609/98.

> >If I understand you correctly, this means that under Brazilian law, distribution of binaries would satisfy a legal requirement that source be distributed.

> No, because a legal requirement that source be distributed (as in GPL
> section 3) is exactly that: a requirement that the *source* is
> distributed. Not less. The fact that the source is *equivalent* to the
> (corresponding) binary WRT copyright law has nothing to do with the
> requirement.

But if they're equivalent with respect to copyright law, they are equivalent
for license grants under copyright law.

> We have a "brocardo" (legal axiom) in our doctrine: "He who can do more,
> can do less" (horrid translation to "quem pode mais, pode menos" ["Quién
> puede más, puede menos" in Spanish]). So, if the binary is the result of
> an automated, non-easily-reversible process over the source, and if you
> grant me the right to distribute the source (ie, I can do more), you are
> implicitly granting me the right to distribute the binary (ie, I can do
> less). Now, you can in the conditions to your grant, explicit that if I
> am distributing it in another form, then I must distribute it in the
> source form (or do at least one of the things section 3 enumerates, in
> the case of the GPL).

Ok, this doesn't sound like the source is equivalent to the binary but that
the binary is protected the same way the source is.  In other words, you
probably have a special legal category for "derivative which is not creative 
enough to be granted copyright protection which is distinct from the
original".

In this case, I'd assert that the word "derivative" in American law should
be translated such that it includes (rather than excludes) this concept
from Brazilian law.

> >If this is really the case, the GPL is just a more complex version of the BSD license, under Brazilian law.
> >
> Nope. Again, what exactly are you trying to know?

I'm trying to establish what the words you're using mean.

Thanks,

-- 
Raul