So here is an interesting copyright question to ponder: are we allowed to redistribute binaries of open source software that have been compiled and signed by Apple?
Show this thread
-
for some piece of software like Python specifically it may be more obvious as they print the license at runtime (Python: license() in the REPL) while I'd agree on it being a mechanical process, binary changes by new build system scripts (e.g. signing) might be less obviously so?
I'm not convinced that signing itself creates a derivative work (as attaching a digital signature does not change the actual copyrighted software, and I don't think numbers that aren't creative expression i.e. digital signatures are copyrightable? but IANAL)
![Adam [he/him]](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2328235588/mky7liyb93paqco9cfuk_normal.gif)
-
-
judging from the many MIT licenses included in softwarelicense windows, I'd argue at least the common consensus seems to be that compiling is enough of a not substantially deriving work that you still have to include the disclaimer as part of The Software :) but yeah, lawyers...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.