[Linux-aus] Meaning of object code/binary format/executable format in GPL/BSD style licenses

Andrew Donnellan ajdlinux at gmail.com
Sat Sep 23 05:18:02 UTC 2006

On 9/23/06, Glen Turner <glen.turner at aarnet.edu.au> wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan wrote:
> > 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.
> That's not the case in Australian copyright law, since that
> argument was successfully used in Apple Computer (a Apple II
> clone maker copied the ROMs and Apple sued, Apple lost since
> the ROM binary was of not a literary work -- the assembler
> was the literary work).  After that success the legislation
> was altered.

However in that case the clone was made off the compiled version (the
actual ROM) rather than being non-creatively translated from the
literary work - the source code.

Again, IANAL.

Andrew Donnellan
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 mailing list