Re: Copyright statements in different forms of a work (was: Choosing a License: GNU APL? AFL 3.0?)

[Arnoud Engelfriet <arnoud@engelfriet.net>]

Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 14:12:00 +0100 Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> > I'd argue it is a translation and therefore a derivative work.
> 
> I was under the impression that a "mechanical" (i.e.: automated, without
> any new creative input from the compiler user) translation didn't create
> a derivative work, just a different form of the same work.
> Compare with photocopying a piece of paper.

Good point. Under US law you're probably right. Other countries sometimes
group anything that's not a literal reproduction under 'derivative work'.

In those jurisdictions (mine -the Netherlands- for one) you then have
non-creative and creative derivative works.

If I compile source into binary, I have a non-creative derivative.
If I edit the source and compile it, I have a creative derivative.
The difference is that I have a copyright on the latter but not
on the former, thanks to my creative additions to the latter. 

So the question is how "derivative" is defined under local law.

Arnoud

-- 
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/