|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 04:44 AM EDT |
You are correct, however TRIPS and copyright laws in all jurisdictions that have
implemented it _define_ compiled code as copyrightable. Thus when you decompile
you are copying (and translating) something that by definition is
copyrightable.
From TRIPS Article 10:
1. Computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as
literary works under the Berne Convention (1971).
I don't know which country rammed this through in a hurry (I have been told that
this was inserted rather hastily by people who are likely to know) but I
wouldn't be surprised at all if it was the US.
It looks like this Article overrides this paragraph from Article 9 (which would
be the usual interpretation as I understand it because it comes afterwards in
the text):
2. Copyright protection shall extend to expressions and not to ideas,
procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such.
So, despite the fact that there is nothing aside from data (not just string
literals, but data representations of musical works, artistic works (graphics),
etc.) that should be copyrightable subject matter (because of its functional
nature), copyright has been extended to it by definition.
It's an awful and wrong-headed result, but we're stuck with it until people make
enough noise (and spend enough money) to get it changed. Unfortunately I doubt
that that will happen any time soon.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 07:44 PM EDT |
Two major errors in that ...
First of all, some compilers (either by default or upon request) will copy
comments from source into object code.
And secondly, source code is copyrightable (as indeed it should be!). A
machine-translation into object code does not affect the copyright - the
object-file is equivalent therefore is equally protected. The same rule applies
running a decompiler over the object - it's a mechanical translation, therefore
the decompiled source is covered by the SAME copyright as the object, which is
the SAME copyright as covers the original source.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
