Joe Moore writes: > 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?)
I believe that for the purposes of copyright, mechanical translations are protected the same ways as the original work. You raise a good point, though; I have seen some analyses that do treat a compiled version of code as a derivative work. As usual, I am willing to be convinced by solid references or arguments. Michael Poole
