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

Re: Does the ISC license require to reproduce copyrights in debian/copyright ?

Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> writes:

> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:19:29 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote:
> [...]
> > Does this concern binary distribution: is a compiled version a
> > “copy”?
> Why not? I personally think that a compiled copy of the software is
> indeed a "copy".

There's little to connect the two forms. If given a bunch of bytes and a
bundle of source code, in many cases it would not be easy to say whether
one was a compiled version of the other. That makes it rather unlike
what most people would mean by “copy”.

I think of it more as a translation into another language. It's an
automated, mechanical translation though, so unlike most human-language
translated works, there's no creativity in the translation step.

> What other term would you use to describe the compiled thing?

Perhaps a “transformation” is better.

> It is my understanding that a compiled version of the software is a
> copy of the software (in compiled form).

I think it's instructive that the GPL discusses “form of the work”,
not “copy”, for this distinction; perhaps in an effort to be clear
about this point.

 \        “We should be less concerned about adding years to life, and |
  `\         more about adding life to years.” —Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

Attachment: pgpi56ywprkPN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: