Hi; When I saw this thread about machine-generate files, I never imagined we would be taking about code in OpenOffice.org but I found that this file: icc/source/create_sRGB_profile/create_sRGB_profile.cpp
indeed generates viral licensed code! I am proposing an obvious patch but I wanted the issue documented so I created bug 118512. enjoy ;) Pedro. --- On Thu, 9/29/11, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:53 AM, > Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > > Let me recall the bidding a little here. What I said > was > > > > " It is unlikely that machine-generated files of any > kind are copyrightable subject matter." > > > > You point out that computer-generated files might > incorporate copyrightable subject matter. I hadn't > considered a hybrid case where copyrightable subject matter > would subsist in such a work, and I have no idea how and to > what extend the output qualifies as a work of authorship, > but it is certainly a case to be reckoned with. > > > > Then there is the issue of macro expansion, template > parameter substitution, etc., and the cases becomes blurrier > and blurrier. For example, if I wrote a program and then > put it through the C Language pre-processor, in how much of > the expanded result does the copyright declared on the > original subsist? (I am willing to concede, for purposes > of argument, that the second is a derivative work of the > former, even though the derivation occurred dynamically.) > > > > I fancy this example because it is commonplace that > the pre-processor incorporated files that have their own > copyright and license notices too. Also, the original > might include macro calls, with > > parameters using macros defined in one or more of > those incorporated files. > > > > Under US law: "Copyright protection subsists, in > accordance with this > title, in original works of authorship fixed in any > tangible medium of > expression, now known or later developed, from which they > can be > perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either > directly or > with the aid of a machine or device" > > IANAL, but I believe Dennis is correct that a machine > cannot be an > author, in terms of copyright. But the author of that > program might. > It comes down to who exactly put the work into a "fixed in > any > tangible medium of expression". > > When I used a n ordinary code editor, the machine acts as a > tool that > I use to create an original work. It is a tool, like a > paintbrush. In > other cases, a tool can be used to transform a work. > > If there is an original work in fixed form that I > transform, then I > may have copyright interest in the transformed work. That > is how > copyright law protects software binaries as well as source > code. > > As for the GNU Bison example, if I created the BNF, then I > have > copyright interest in the generated code. That does > not mean that I > have exclusive ownership of all the generated code. > It might be a > mashup of original template code from the Bison authors, > along with > code that is a transformation of my original grammar > definition. It > isn't an either/or situation. A work can have mixed > authorship. > > -Rob > > > > I concede that copyrightable matter can survive into a > machine-generated file. And I maintain that there can be > other conditions on the use of such a file other than by > virtue of it containing portions in which copyright > subsists. For example, I don't think the Copyright office > is going to accept registration of compiled binaries any > time soon, even though there may be conditions on the > license of the source code that carries over onto those > binaries. > > > > And, yes, it is murky all the way down. > > > > - Dennis > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamil...@acm.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 22:32 > > To: 'ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org' > > Subject: RE: A systematic approach to IP review? > > > > Not to put too fine a point on this, but it sounds > like you are talking about boilerplate (and authored) > template code that Bison incorporates in its output. It is > also tricky because the Bison output is computer source > code. That is an interesting case. > > > > In the US, original work of authorship is pretty > specific in the case of literary works, which is where > software copyright falls the last time I checked (too long > ago, though). I suspect that a license (in the contractual > sense) can deal with more than copyright. And, if Bison > spits out copyright notices, they still only apply to that > part of the output, if any, that qualifies as copyrightable > subject matter. > > > > Has the Bison claim ever been tested in court? Has > anyone been pursued or challenged for infringement? I'm just > curious. > > > > - Dennis > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Norbert Thiebaud [mailto:nthieb...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 22:11 > > To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; > dennis.hamil...@acm.org > > Subject: Re: A systematic approach to IP review? > > > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton > > <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> > wrote: > >> I'll stand by my original statement. > >> > >> I'm not going to get into the Pixar case since it > doesn't apply here. > > > > I did not say it applied to the Visual studio > generated cruft... I > > merely commented on the blanket assertion that > 'computer generated => > > no copyright' > >> > >> The Bison manual may have license conditions on > what can be done with the generated artifact, but I suggest > that is not about copyrightable subject matter in the > artifact. > > Actually it is. The only claim they could legally have > _is_ on the > > generated bit that are substantial piece of code > copied from template > > they provide, namely in the case of a bison generated > parser the whole > > parser skeleton needed to exploit the generated > state-graph. the whole > > paragraph is about the copyright disposition of these > bits. and in the > > case of bison they explicitly grant you a license to > use these bits in > > the 'normal' use case... my point being that the > existence of that > > paragraph also disprove the assertion that 'computer > generated => no > > copyright' > > > > You could write a program that print itself... the > mere fact that it > > print itself does not mean you lose the copyright on > your program... > > > > That being said, I do think you are on the clear with > the Visual > > Studio generated cruft... but not merely because there > is 'computer > > generation' involved. > > > > > > Norbert > > > > > >
