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
-
What I see is that software companies are usually permissive in this regard, but my understanding is that when you build a binary, you hold the rights over it unless software license says otherwise (and AFAIK common FLOSS licenses don't).
That seems to be a common assumption, but I haven't heard of a legal basis for it. AIUI, copyright interest requires that you create a derivative work, which requires originality, but nothing about typing "make" is original. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work#Originality_requirement …
-
-
But do the "derivative" rules apply to compilation of the sources? I see this like for example in the music industry you can do a recording of yourself playing public domain songs, and hold the copyright of your interpretation.
-
I find these topics very interesting, I hope you share with us whatever you find.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This brings up the theoretical question if having a substantially "original" compile process would constitute a derived work then. Works that would benefit from that notion would then be e.g. - a proprietary optimizing compiler - a proprietary obfuscating compiler
-
Indeed it does. I'm assuming the compiler is also open here.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.