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