Source Distribution License

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

Alexander's point is not exactly correct, but I think the main point was on
target; namely, in addressing questions concerning the copyrightability for
software, the object code is not likely to be treated differently than the
source code.  In some cases, the distinction between object code and source
gets pretty fuzzy and, in my opinion, treating the two differently would
dislodge whatever is left of the logic in our copyright jurisprudence that
applies to software.

 Having said that, Alexander's mistake appears to be his reference to the
copyright office.  While the copyright law may treat source code and object
code similarly, the copyright office does not. Instead, the copyright office
may accept a filing for registration of software in the form of object code
only under what is called the "rule of doubt."  Ostensibly, the rule of
doubt means that courts give even less deference to the copyright office's
finding of copyrightability than the court would acknowledge, if it were
assumed that the copyright office actually read the source code sample
submitted with the copyright registration application. The application of
the rule of doubt should mean that the party alleging copyright authorship
on the basis of a work in "object code" has a heavier burden of proof than a
software developer who files for copyright registration using source code.
Rod

Rod Dixon
Open Source Software Law
Blog: http://opensource.cyberspaces.org




: "Mahesh T. Pai" wrote:
: [...]
: > General consensus is that binaries are modified/derived versions of
: > sources.
:
: AFAIK, The U.S. copyright office doesn't agree (the copyright
: office regards the source code and object code as equivalent
: for purposes of registration).
:
: regards,
: alexander.
:
: --
: license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3