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
-
Replying to @marcan42
That's an interesting question. I suspect Apple could prohibit redistribution, but I'm not an expert in the field. Maybe we could look to RedHat. Am I allowed to redistribute all FLOSS binaries built by RedHat? I think the answer is no.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @doragasu
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 …
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Indeed it does. I'm assuming the compiler is also open here.
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.