On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:45:39 +1000 Ben Finney wrote: > 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”. Wait, wait: I think there's some sort of misunderstanding here between you and me (I am sorry for not being always crystal clear: I am not an English native speaker, hence I sometimes fail to choose the best phrasing to express my thoughts...). I *agree* with you that the compiled form of the software should *not* be called "a copy" of the source form. What I meant was: IMHO a copy of the compiled form of the software *does* qualify as "a copy of the software" (in compiled form, obviously, but that doesn't imply that it's not a copy of the same software). Let's bear in mind that we are discussing the following ISC license clause: | Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above | copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What Charles was wondering was whether compiled versions are or are not subject to the obligation to be shipped with copyright & permission notice. I think that a compiled version of the software is indeed a copy of the software (just in a different form than the source code version). Or, to be more explicit: (a) you get a compiled version of the software by processing the source code of the software (with a compiler): what you get is the same piece of software, just in a different form (b) when binary distribution is in place, a recipient gets a copy of the compiled version: that copy qualifies as a copy of the software (in compiled form). Step (a) is a mechanical transformation that does not create a new distinct work: from a copyright point of view, no derivative work is created, just another form of the same work. Step (b) creates a copy of the compiled form of the work. An example that should clarify further: many people get copies of compiled versions of Microsoft Windows (from retailers, from hardware manufacturers, and so forth): this is commonly described as "getting a copy of Windows", even though the source form is jealously kept secret by Microsoft. I hope I clarified what I meant. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgp8WgZ71rdXT.pgp
Description: PGP signature