[jira] [Comment Edited] (LEGAL-168) Apache Third-Party IP Policies

["Dennis E. Hamilton (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ 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