Francesco Poli <f...@firenze.linux.it> writes: > On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:19:29 +0900 Charles Plessy wrote: > > [...] > > Does this concern binary distribution: is a compiled version a > > “copy”? > > Why not? I personally think that a compiled copy of the software is > indeed a "copy".
There's little to connect the two forms. If given a bunch of bytes and a bundle of source code, in many cases it would not be easy to say whether one was a compiled version of the other. That makes it rather unlike what most people would mean by “copy”. I think of it more as a translation into another language. It's an automated, mechanical translation though, so unlike most human-language translated works, there's no creativity in the translation step. > What other term would you use to describe the compiled thing? Perhaps a “transformation” is better. > It is my understanding that a compiled version of the software is a > copy of the software (in compiled form). I think it's instructive that the GPL discusses “form of the work”, not “copy”, for this distinction; perhaps in an effort to be clear about this point. -- \ “We should be less concerned about adding years to life, and | `\ more about adding life to years.” —Arthur C. Clarke, 2001 | _o__) | Ben Finney
pgpGQyGGG1m8q.pgp
Description: PGP signature