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]
