www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Comment Edited] (LEGAL-168) Apache Third-Party IP Policies
Date Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:41:24 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-168?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13682456#comment-13682456
] 

Dennis E. Hamilton edited comment on LEGAL-168 at 6/13/13 5:40 PM:
-------------------------------------------------------------------

@Larry,

That is a good summary of the history of the term "compiler."  The first compiler(s) brought
in pieces of pre-written code and stitched them into the program being produced.  There was
not so much "code generation" as later became increasingly part of what software compilers
do.  

At the time, around 1950, there was no recognized copyright of software, so it is unsurprising
that there was little attention on those terms of art.  I confess to having no recollection
what the copyright-code language was before the 1976 revision and the run-up to explicit inclusion
of computer programs.  I assume the exclusive rights of copyright holders didn't change much
and "compilations" were covered somehow.  (That binaries have the same standing as their source
language codes is one of those marvels of jurisprudence.  It makes sense while not making
sense at the same time.)

I don't think the terms are going to disappear from their software-development usage any time
soon.

I think "compilation" (the noun) is where the collision occurs.  I don't know how to escape
the clash of "compiled works" with what programmers might consider the output of compiler
programs.  I suppose one way to be more clear is to talk about "collective works" "combined
works" and "derivative works" (although the [L]GPL has redefined "combined work" to the specific
case of using a software library in a larger work) and be clear that the conversation is in
the context of 17 USC 101 and copyright.  Use proper nouns.
                
      was (Author: orcmid):
    @Larry,

That is a good summary of the history of the term "compiler."  The first compiler(s) brought
in pieces of pre-written code and stitched them into the program being produced.  There was
not so much "code generation" as later became increasingly part of what software compilers
do.  

At the time, around 1950, there was no recognized copyright of software, so it is unsurprising
that there was little attention on those terms of art.  I confess to having no recollection
what the copyright-code language was before the 1976 revision and the run-up to explicit inclusion
of computer programs.  I assume the exclusive rights of copyright holders didn't change much
and "compilations" were covered somehow.  (That binaries have the same standing as their source
language codes is one of those marvels of jurisprudence.  It makes sense while not making
sense at the same time.)

I don't think the terms are going to disappear from their software-development usage any time
soon.

 think "compilation" (the noun) is where the collision occurs.  I don't know how to escape
the clash of "compiled works" with what programmers might consider the output of compiler
programs.  I suppose one way to be more clear is to talk about "collective works" "combined
works" and "derivative works" (although the [L]GPL has redefined "combined work" to the specific
case of using a software library in a larger work) and be clear that the conversation is in
the context of 17 USC 101 and copyright.  Use proper nouns.
                  
> Apache Third-Party IP Policies
> ------------------------------
>
>                 Key: LEGAL-168
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-168
>             Project: Legal Discuss
>          Issue Type: Question
>            Reporter: Lawrence Rosen
>
> I'd like to help the Apache community to discuss Apache Software Foundation policies
regarding contributions of copyrighted works from third parties in order for us to publish
them at the Apache website. 
> This discussion is now scattered among many JIRA issues and email archives. For example,
a recent thread here reconstructed my own correspondence about this to the legal-discuss@
list in 2005 -- and then misinterpreted what I'd said then. So I want this new JIRA issue
where I am free to say what I want when I want to say it, without obstruction from issue-jumpers
and list-jumpers around here who try to discourage coherent arguments.
> I'll probably be wrong in some of what I say. I will sign my own comments here and I
will read (and perhaps respond to) any comments from anyone who signs his or her name here
also. I will particularly welcome comments from the attorneys on this list, at least those
who aren't too cowardly or too busy to speak up. If you don't enjoy legal controversy, don't
read this JIRA thread.
> Best regards,
> /Larry
> P.S. More to come....

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message