Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"

[Rjack]

Rjack wrote:
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
> > > Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > > > Note that the copyright of executable files is invariably
> > > > held to be held by those who have copyright of the source
> > > > files, not those who wrote the compiler.
> >
> > > An interesting aside is that the source and executable forms
> > > of a computer program do not have separate copyrights. They
> > > are considered to be the same work for copyright purposes.
>
> They are *not* considered to be the same work for copyright 
> purposes. One form is considered to be a "translation" of the
> other. That makes one a *derivative* work of the other under US
> law:
>
> 17 USC 101 Definitions.
>
> A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting 
> works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
>  fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art 
> reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in
> which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work
> consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or
> other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original
> work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

Just imagine filing a copyright infringement case and asking a jury
to evaluate the "substantial similarity"(a task for the trier of
fact) between source and object code:

------------------------------
(for i = 1; i < 235; i++){
    var1 = var2;
    var3 = var1 % var4;}
------------------------------

compared with;

------------------------------
111011010011100010011110001010
------------------------------


Hmmmm........

Sincerely,
Rjack :)