Questions on GPL for billwg 15415

Huh, so all those people trading electronic MP3 files *aren't* violating copyright? You'd better let the RIAA know...

What, you mean compiling source? Copyright covers translations, and I have a hard time believing you could convince a judge that a compiled binary *wasn't* a translation of the source code...

I've produced plenty of cites, you haven't produced any. You are going against what appears to be the entirety of the legal profession here. This link, for example, took less than 10 seconds of Googling: softwareCopyrightAndTheComputerProgrammer.html

In the case of copyright, *yes* it makes a difference if there is more than one way to express something. The doctrine of "merger" requires, very explicitly, that there be *only one way* of expressing the idea. If there is *more* than one way, then merger doesn't apply.

Now, a restricted number of ways *might* have a practical effect in a courtroom, I will grant. In the absence of other evidence of infringement, the fact that you picked one of only two ways to express a programming idea might not be considered to be a preponderance of the evidence. (I will note that, should someone bring a copyright claim against you, Bill Weisgerber, specificially, some of your posts here might be usable Well, there are at least two distinct scenarios here. One involves distributing GPL code unmodified but linking to it in ways not condoned by the GPL. (See, e.g., NVidia drivers for ways around this.) Another involved stealing GPL code outright.

As noted above, 'translations' are still covered by the copyright on the original work...

How many lines? Too many to post here?

--

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317

Microsoft Windows - Simplicity made complex.