Michael Poole wrote: > See also http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html, which remarks both > that the whole of the derivative work must represent an original work > of authorship, rather than an arrangement of distinct works, and that > mechanical (non-creative, ergo non-copyrightable) transformation of the > original does not make a derivative.
Doesn't this mean that the compiled (in the computer sense) binary is not a derivative work of the source? (mechanical transformation from C code to ELF executable does not make a derivative?) That's an interpretation of law that seems a bit too extreme to be reasonable. It would (if correct) make a lot of current copyright infringement (or as it is sometimes called "software piracy") legitimate. Since I'm not distributing the source code (which is the original work of authorship), just a mechanical transformation of it (ergo non-copyrightable), giving MSOffice.exe to all my friends is not a copyright violation????? --Joe
