Re: Linux and GPLv2

[Måns Rullgård <mru@inprovide.com>]

Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:25:39AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>> >>My claim was: "*Basically*, bits in .h files are not
>> >>copyrightable". Which I now solemnly amend to "The kind of bits you
>> >>normally (>99% of the times) find in .h files in c-language based
>> >>projects, and often (>50% of the times) find in .h files in c++ based
>> >>projects, are those defining interfaces, deeming them uncopyrightable
>> >>by current USofAn and Brazilian law". Better?
>
>> Raul Miller wrote:
>> >However, for U.S. law, this isn't necessarily the case.
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 04:14:47PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>> I was referring to the fact that there is some case law in the USofA 
>> that deemed interface definitions, as present normally in .h files, 
>> uncopyrightable.
>> 
>> HTH
>
> Those .h files were held to be not protected by copyright because no
> viable alternatives were available to interface with the system.
>
> It's hard to see how this reasoning would apply in a context where there
> is some viable alternative available to interface with the system.

Alternative to what?  There can be no alternative to the full set of
interfaces to the system.  Are you trying to argue, that several
interfaces exist, use of each one is protected due to the existence of
the others?

Suppose there is only one interface, such that it, per your reasoning,
is not protected.  Now add another.  Does this addition suddenly make
the first interface protected?  What if they were created in the
opposite order?

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com