Re: Copyright statements in different forms of a work (was: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?)
Ben Finney wrote:
> Arnoud Engelfriet <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > One case where this could become problematic is when permission is
> > granted to create derivative works. If the derivative work can be
> > distributed in binary-only form, then the copyright notices in the
> > source code become irrelevant.
> I'm not sure how copyright law treats this in general. Is it the case
> that a binary form, compiled from a copyrighted source form of a work,
> is a "derived work", or is it the original copyrighted work itself?
I'd argue it is a translation and therefore a derivative work.
The case becomes a little more clear when the source code is edited
and/or additional pieces of software are linked into the binary.
> I imagine that, whatever the answer to the above question -- whether
> the redistribution in binary form is either the original work or a
> derived work of the original -- the original copyright notice still
> *applies*, whether it's included or not.
Of course. Copyright remains in force until 70 years after the
author has died (etc) regardless of any formalities.
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/