3. Yes. No longer the same when all the original code is gone (see BSD Unix). Note, though, that BSD is descried as a rewrite, not a refactor. There may be a line short of that, but I doubt it.
4. No. To be completely safe, though, it should be Chinese-walled.
5. I don't think so, so long as they do not distribute B'. Copyright law contains a statutory right to make modifications to enable it to run. Note that this is often done - VM hosts rewrite code for virtualization, the JVM does JIT compilation, and as an extreme example the Transmeta Crusoe processor rewrote x86 machine code into its instruction set on the fly.
6 and 7 - how is the reverse engineering done? If it is a translation of A', it is probably copyright infringement, but this situation is somewhat confusing to me.
8. I hope not! Further, on modern OSes, the non-modifiable executable memory pages should be shared between processes, so there's only actually one copy in memory but it's mapped into both processes. It might violate a EULA or other licensing terms, but that doesn't make it copyright infringement. Copyright itself isn't very clear on this kind of ephemeral copying so far as I know.
9. This one is getting shadier, but I don't think it's copyright infringment. It might violate a EULA, but not all EULA violations are copyright infringement (depending on a variety of factors).
10. I don't entirely understand this one. If the process is designed to be forked and distributed in this fashion, then absent other license terms I'd have to say probably not.
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes. No longer the same when all the original code is gone (see BSD Unix). Note, though, that BSD is descried as a rewrite, not a refactor. There may be a line short of that, but I doubt it.
4. No. To be completely safe, though, it should be Chinese-walled.
5. I don't think so, so long as they do not distribute B'. Copyright law contains a statutory right to make modifications to enable it to run. Note that this is often done - VM hosts rewrite code for virtualization, the JVM does JIT compilation, and as an extreme example the Transmeta Crusoe processor rewrote x86 machine code into its instruction set on the fly.
6 and 7 - how is the reverse engineering done? If it is a translation of A', it is probably copyright infringement, but this situation is somewhat confusing to me.
8. I hope not! Further, on modern OSes, the non-modifiable executable memory pages should be shared between processes, so there's only actually one copy in memory but it's mapped into both processes. It might violate a EULA or other licensing terms, but that doesn't make it copyright infringement. Copyright itself isn't very clear on this kind of ephemeral copying so far as I know.
9. This one is getting shadier, but I don't think it's copyright infringment. It might violate a EULA, but not all EULA violations are copyright infringement (depending on a variety of factors).
10. I don't entirely understand this one. If the process is designed to be forked and distributed in this fashion, then absent other license terms I'd have to say probably not.