|
|
|
|
|
|
by AshamedCaptain
941 days ago
|
|
|
You are doing the same mistake as the other poster: claiming the consequent. I could also say that my magical transformation process produces code which is not Microsoft's, even when it obviously ingests code that is Microsoft's. Why would your method be stripping copyright protection while mine wouldn't? What's the difference from what you are claiming? Frankly at this point I just want to point out that if in your world view this is allowed, then _all_ software copyright is pointless, since anyone could apply the same rationale to any program in the world. What's the point of the GPL on such world? |
|
|
Fair use.
Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corp.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=716676913673727...
> The object code of a program may be copyrighted as expression, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), but it also contains ideas and performs functions that are not entitled to copyright protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).
> Object code cannot, however, be read by humans.
> The unprotected ideas and functions of the code therefore are frequently undiscoverable in the absence of investigation and translation that may require copying the copyrighted material.
> We conclude that, under the facts of this case and our precedent, Connectix's intermediate copying and use of Sony's copyrighted BIOS was a fair use for the purpose of gaining access to the unprotected elements of Sony's software.
Not only are the methods of operation which underlie the code completely unprotected, the copying of and the application of tools to the code for the purpose of exercising your right to discover those unprotected elements is fair use.
> then _all_ software copyright is pointless
It is pointless. I am a copyright abolitionist.
> What's the point of the GPL on such world?
None. The GPL was literally created in response to copyright protection being extended to software. No copyright, no point to the GPL.