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

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



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: pgpNZIouaE2P6.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: