[Linux-aus] Meaning of object code/binary format/executable format in GPL/BSD style licenses
ajdlinux at gmail.com
Fri Sep 22 17:23:02 UTC 2006
On 9/20/06, Benno <benjl at cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
> On Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 16:58:05 +1000, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> >I think it is a different representation of the original code and
> >probably not covered by the GPL.
> >Say, your code is licensed under the GPL and written in C. Then
> >somebody ports that to python. What license would you expect to have
> >to represent it under? Is there something in the GPL that covers this
> >situation? I don't know, but my gut feeling no. But IANL either. :)
> Mmm good question. Also I don't know if it makes a difference if it is
> a person, or a machine. E.g: If I have a program that converts C ->
> Python would that make a difference?
I believe that under copyright law to be a separate copyrighted work
requires that it be creative. Therefore, manually translating it can
be considered creative (it's actually reimplementing the same
algorithm (which cannot be copyrighted) in a different language),
where as a machine translation is not creative and is therefore
considered not copyrightable making it a derived work as it is based
on an already copyrighter work.
> It seems dangerous, lets define a language C', which is like C but a
> little different, then have a program that automatically changes C ->
> C', can I now get the whole corpus for free? I doubt it.
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
Jabber - ajdlinux at jabber.org.au
GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
More information about the linux-aus