Alexander's point is not exactly correct, but I think the main point was on target; namely, in addressing questions concerning the copyrightability for software, the object code is not likely to be treated differently than the source code. In some cases, the distinction between object code and source gets pretty fuzzy and, in my opinion, treating the two differently would dislodge whatever is left of the logic in our copyright jurisprudence that applies to software.
Having said that, Alexander's mistake appears to be his reference to the copyright office. While the copyright law may treat source code and object code similarly, the copyright office does not. Instead, the copyright office may accept a filing for registration of software in the form of object code only under what is called the "rule of doubt." Ostensibly, the rule of doubt means that courts give even less deference to the copyright office's finding of copyrightability than the court would acknowledge, if it were assumed that the copyright office actually read the source code sample submitted with the copyright registration application. The application of the rule of doubt should mean that the party alleging copyright authorship on the basis of a work in "object code" has a heavier burden of proof than a software developer who files for copyright registration using source code. Rod Rod Dixon Open Source Software Law Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org : "Mahesh T. Pai" wrote: : [...] : > General consensus is that binaries are modified/derived versions of : > sources. : : AFAIK, The U.S. copyright office doesn't agree (the copyright : office regards the source code and object code as equivalent : for purposes of registration). : : regards, : alexander. : : -- : license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3