Re: Bug#227159: ocaml: license conflict in Emacs Lisp support?
On Jan 22, 2004, at 13:59, Jakob Bohm wrote:
Nor am I.
How does this relate to (override, narrow, whatever) the
precedent set by Lotus vs. Borland (the famous case about
Quattro Pro reproducing the "Look and Feel" of Lotus-1-2-3,
partially because it was also the Lotus-1-2-3 macro language
Lotus v. Borland relied on "methods of operation" not being
copyrightable. The court found that the menus were how a person
operated Lotus, and thus were not copyrightable.
I haven't read that decision in a little while, but I think it even
mentions that were it not for that, there was clear infringement.
I'm not sure APIs would be considered a "method of operation." I think
it could be argued for documented, public interfaces; arguing it for
undocumented ones is harder. But, as I said, IANAL, TINLA, and TINLC.