Re: copyright on binary packages
But these people are paying for the development of *some* packages. That collection probably is copyrightable. Further, it wasn't clear to me from Olaf's message what, exactly, these people are claiming copyright to, and whether they think this denies any other copyright interests. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: copyright on binary packages
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 06:40:38PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: I've been pestered by the people who pay for the development of several of our packages to add a blurb claiming copyright on the *binary* packages we build and distribute. Binary packages built and distributed by others are not to be covered by this copyright claim. Now this strikes my as pretty off-the-wall and impractical, but I am wondering whether anyone knows of prior art in this area. If I think it goes beyond impractical -- I believe it's not legally enforceable. The transformation from source to binary form does not contain any elements of creative input; the process itself is trivially reproducable, and with the same set of inputs you will produce identical output every time. I'd be interested in what purpose they're trying to serve by claiming copyright protection over the compiled form, especially when they're not trying to claim protection over builds produced by others. Could a trademark do what they're trying to achieve? you can come up with good reasons NOT to include such a copyright notice, by all means let me know because I would be much happier without yet another licence/copyright wart on our packages. Because it's bloody ridiculous? Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be a persuasive argument in the corporate world these days. # I've got to convince proprietary software licence/copyright law # veterans that have not the foggiest idea about FLOSS, it seems. Of course. You don't have to convince the ones that *do* have the idea already... - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: copyright on binary packages
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 06:40:38PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: I've been pestered by the people who pay for the development of several of our packages to add a blurb claiming copyright on the *binary* packages we build and distribute. Binary packages built and distributed by others are not to be covered by this copyright claim. Now this strikes my as pretty off-the-wall and impractical, but I am wondering whether anyone knows of prior art in this area. If I think it goes beyond impractical -- I believe it's not legally enforceable. The transformation from source to binary form does not contain any elements of creative input; the process itself is trivially reproducable, and with the same set of inputs you will produce identical output every time. But the copyright is still held by the author of the source. Additionally, a repository of packages, with particular selections of quality software, is copyrightable in the same way that an anthology or magazine is copyrightable. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: copyright on binary packages
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 01:05:29PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 06:40:38PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: I've been pestered by the people who pay for the development of several of our packages to add a blurb claiming copyright on the *binary* packages we build and distribute. Binary packages built and distributed by others are not to be covered by this copyright claim. Now this strikes my as pretty off-the-wall and impractical, but I am wondering whether anyone knows of prior art in this area. If I think it goes beyond impractical -- I believe it's not legally enforceable. The transformation from source to binary form does not contain any elements of creative input; the process itself is trivially reproducable, and with the same set of inputs you will produce identical output every time. But the copyright is still held by the author of the source. Indeed. But that's not the issue at hand. Additionally, a repository of packages, with particular selections of quality software, is copyrightable in the same way that an anthology or magazine is copyrightable. Again, not what is being discussed. The creation of an anthology or collection involves creative input; two people, faced with the same possibles set, and even the same criteria for selection, will quite possibly choose differently. The same does not apply to the compilation of a piece of software, unless the build process is horribly fucked up. - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
