[redis_mlc]

> Copyright law does not grant you the right to spread something you downloaded even if it was free.

Software source code is copyrightable (to a large extent, for the past 30 years) in the US, but a program exe might not be as there's no artistic expression at all in the bit pattern alone.

So an exe might just fall under license terms.

Source: I have successfully filed software copyrights and trademarks.

[sjwright]

That's so wrong it's almost painful. Copyright is the only reason why anyone pays attention to the license associated with compiled software. What would be the point of a license for an artefact not protected by copyright?

It also is absurd to suggest that there is artistic expression in source code but not in a direct translation of that same artistic expression.

And it's also worth remembering that binaries contain more than just executable machine code—they also contain strings, bitmaps etc. Are you claiming that strings and bitmaps cannot be copyrighted too?

[redis_mlc]

Actually there was a court case that agreed with my reasons, and that was the law initially.

It looks like object code became copyrightable in the US in 1983 through a few court cases:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/18ba/427b7142a61534006f4fda...

Don't know about other countries.

[sjwright]

An assertion that one court somewhere on the planet erred in a spectacularly ridiculous way isn’t evidence of anything.

[labawi]

Similarly, asserting a court erred in a spectacularly ridiculous way is not an argument.

Note that before 1989, rules in USA were quite different. Instead of: everything is IP, almost forever - explicit copyright registration was required for protection of works.

While object code was ruled as copyrightable for pretty obvious reasons, initial rulings seems quite consistent with law at the time. Current 100+ year copyright terms might seem similarly ridiculous to copyrights founders.

[sjwright]

Yes, it is an argument. It is not evidence, it may not be compelling argument for you, but it’s unquestionably an argument.

I refuse to accept that courts deemed compiled code to not be a creative work or intellectual property. Remember—a lot of early computer code was written in assembler...

[labawi]

So you refuse to accept the fact, for which there is evidence[1], that in given time and place, courts ruled object code not to be copyrightable, and furthermore it was not a solitary ruling and it was consistent with the rules of law at the time, so you call the ruling spectacularly ridiculous.

You may call it an argument. I may then argue by refusing to accept it.

[1] please view pdf linked above

[iso1631]

That's a crazy viewpoint, I've never signed any license agreement with microsoft, but if I were to have a copy of a windows 10 ISO, or even just calc.exe, I wouldn't be allowed to share it

[redis_mlc]

No, it's not crazy, and copyright was only extended to binaries in 1983.

[mrkstu]

An OS iso is going to have a multitude of copyrighted assets beyond complied programs.