On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 04:49:19PM +1100, Don Sanders wrote: > FYI a legal precedent that object code is not an adaption of the source code > exists: > http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/unrep1497.html?query=%22source%22%20and%20%22code%22#disp5 > > Australian Federal court of appeals: ... > <quote> > I have reached the conclusion, not without some hesitation, that the > programmes in object code are not adaptations, that is, translations > of the programmes in source code. > </quote> > > This confirms my suspicions that the use of the word "translation" > in the GPL, means the same as it does in copyright law that is > translation between human languages. I also consulted a few legal > dictionaries that futher strengthened this view.
In contexts where that precedent is considered valid [are there any?], you can make as many copies as you want of *any* object code and distribute them to whoever you please -- there's no copyright protection for them. Have fun, -- Raul
