Re: [tlug] Open source license (wikipedia)

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull.stephen.fw@example.com>]

Benjamin Kowarsch writes:

 > Stephen, I didn't disagree with you but my reply was to Darren

NARRATOR: The message Benjamin replied to was authored by Stephen.

 > who wrote that he didn't think it could possibly be right that
 > reconstructability of the original text was the applicable test.

NARRATOR: In fact, Darren evidently accepts that as a reasonable test,
stated that people who might have reason to know also accept it, and
is confident his project satisfies that criterion.

 > He based this on the conclusion that software source code compiled
 > into executable code still constitutes a derivative work even
 > though the original source code may not be exactly reproducible
 > (verbatim) from the executable code.

NARRATOR: Again, that was Stephen, not Darren.

 > Hence my response that it doesn't have to match verbatim to
 > satisify the test of reproducibility of original.

NARRATOR: True enough, but that is still the wrong test for copyright
infringement (neither necessary nor sufficient, counterexamples to
both were presented), though it happens to work in some common cases.

 > hope this clarifies

In a sense it does.


-- 
Associate Professor              Division of Policy and Planning Science
http://turnbull/sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/     Faculty of Systems and Information
Email: turnbull@example.com                   University of Tsukuba
Tel: 029-853-5175                 Tennodai 1-1-1, Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN