"Compilation" is a standard legal term in U.S. copyright law. It's actually
defined by the copyright law itself
(http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html):
A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of
preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordinated, or arranged
in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original
work of authorship. The term “compilation” includes collective works.
(end quote)
The individual files in the library are all public domain, some written by
people other than myself. So you can do whatever you want with individual
files, for example taking code snippets and putting them in your own
published source code without having to worry about copyright at all. But
I'm claiming compilation copyright over the library as a whole. The license
still allows you to do pretty much whatever you want with the compilation,
with a few exceptions, like republishing the whole library or a large part
of it in source code form without the license attached.
My understanding is that once you link your program with Crypto++, the
resulting binary is considered a "derived work" of Crypto++ and its
distribution would fall under the license, but the terms of the license are
pretty liberal so that shouldn't cause any problems.
I thought my explanation on the website was pretty clear, but apparently
not. Can anyone suggest any changes to the text that might make it clearer?
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Walton
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 3:19 PM
To: Crypto++ Users
Subject: Crypto++ License and meaning of "Compilation"
Hi Wei,
I was talking with some folks who are interested in using Crypto++.
They are slightly confused by the license - specifically, use of the
word "compilation" and its meaning in legal terms. Here's the way the
discussion carried on.
"A distinction is made between the library as a compilation (i.e.,
collection) .... and the individual files in it, which are public
domain." (website)
- Wei Dai is retaining copyright over all files that make up Crypto+
+. If one or more files are missing from the collection of all files,
Dai is not asserting his copyright. Dai is retaining copyright on the
single ZIP file which contains the collection of all files.
"The library is copyrighted as a compilation in order to place certain
disclaimers...." (website)
- Wei Dai is asserting copyright over the output of the compilation
and link process. It is unclear whether the assertion applies to all
resulting bianaries (for example, a DLL or LIB produced from the
sources by a programmer) or just the FIPS DLL (which [presumably] Dai
produced himself).
"... compilation in any form, except in object code, ...." (license
text)
- Wei Dai is asserting his copyright on the collection of all source
files, and the resulting binary. Dai is not asserting the right for
intermediate files of the compilation process: the object files (*.o).
"...If this compilation is used in object code form in an application
software..." (license text)
- Wei Dai is not asserting his copyright on intermediate files of the
compilation process (object files, *.o). A LIB is a collection of
intermediate object files, so Dai is not retaining copyright on a LIB.
However, Dai retains copyright over a DLL since the resuting binary is
not intermediate an can be executed.
It seems the word compilation can be misinterpreted as "resulting
binary". Would you be able to clarify the use of "compilation'?
Jeff
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users"
Google Group.
To unsubscribe, send an email to
[email protected].
More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at
http://www.cryptopp.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users"
Google Group.
To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected].
More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at
http://www.cryptopp.com.
