[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception"
From: |
Barry Margolin |
Subject: |
Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception" |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:57:17 -0500 |
User-agent: |
MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X) |
In article <%4Egl.91026$1k1.79030@newsfe14.iad>,
Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
> 7 wrote:
> > The output of a CD player is music and a derivative of the CD's binary
> > data held within and the music is protected by copyright.
> >
> > The output of GCC are code structures that have been hand coded
> > by someone with copyright over the way its been put together.
> > When gcc produces its output, that output is legally protected
> > by copyright because it embodies their hand crafted work.
>
> Please see <http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf>, for example:
> A ³derivative work,² that is, a work that is based on
> (or derived from) one or more already existing works,
> is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law
> calls an ³original work of authorship.²
>
> The consistent (and apparently deliberate) error made by the FSF is
> to disregard the "original work of authorship" requirement. The
> circular also goes on to say:
> Compilations and abridgments may also be copyrightable if
> they contain new work of authorship. When the collecting of
> the preexisting material that makes up the compilation is a
> purely mechanical task with no element of editorial selection,
> or when only a few minor deletions constitute an abridgment,
> copyright protection for the compilation or abridgment as a
> new version is not available.
>
> Thus: the inclusion of runtime library code in the output of a
> program does not create a derivative work because there has been
> no original work of authorship involved in the creation of the
> output. When the output contains pieces of runtime library code
> it might be considered a compilation, but since the output has
> literally been generated by a purely mechanical task, it is not
> eligible for copyright protection as a compilation.
>
> It may still be possible to craft a license restriction on the
> runtime library code that will make things behave in the way the
> FSF would like, though.
I believe the choice of library to incorporate is an "original work of
authorship". Linking a set of object files and libraries is analogous
to creating an anthology in traditional literature.
The "purely mechanical" exception comes from a case involving a
telephone directory. There's no creative authorship in taking an
existing database of names, addresses, and phone numbers and printing
them out alphabetically.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", (continued)
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", 7, 2009/01/30
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Hyman Rosen, 2009/01/30
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", 7, 2009/01/30
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Hyman Rosen, 2009/01/31
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Rjack, 2009/01/30
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", 7, 2009/01/30
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Rjack, 2009/01/30
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception",
Barry Margolin <=
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Hyman Rosen, 2009/01/31
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Chris Ahlstrom, 2009/01/29
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", David Kastrup, 2009/01/29
- Re: [ROFL] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", Alexander Terekhov, 2009/01/29
Re: [Idiot] GCC's GPLv3 "Updated License Exception", chrisv, 2009/01/30