I've been informed that this case did in fact make it all the way to the High Court of Australia (the highest court in Australia):
COMPUTER EDGE PTY LTD v. APPLE COMPUTER INC. (1986) 161 CLR 171 F.C. 86/017 http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/161clr171.html?query=%22source+code%22 Interesting stuff, still researching... (I include one reply below). On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Don Sanders wrote: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Raul Miller wrote: > > 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/unrep14 > > >97.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?], > > Yes the case in question is one example where this precedent is considered > valid. As my legal associates keep telling me courts won't decide > hypotheticals, which means each decision is based on the facts of the > individual case. > > But since this is the Australian Federal court of appeals I would *guess* > this sets an important precedent for the entire country. > > > 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. > > I was wondering about this too. It's definitely something worth looking into, > if I can find one I'll ask a lawyer what the story is tomorrow (or at least > some time this week). Okay, in this case I would maintain that even though the object code is not a work based on the source code it is still a literary work in its own right, and the creator of the object code owns the copyright to the object code. As the object code didn't come with a license it is under no license and hence permission to modify, distribute, etc it has not been given. (The same as the previous gnu grep example). I should note that the copyright lawyer I've been talking to believes that the object code is a derivative work of the source code but he doesn't have much time to look into it. BFN, Don.
