Re: Linux and GPLv2

[Måns Rullgård <mru@inprovide.com>]

Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:53:52PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I'd question whether that'd apply to a *free* system, anyway.  I havn't
> looked at these cases (since I don't know which they are), but I recall
> a case that sounds just like it: an author of a work created (under
> contract) for a movie claimed that no license to actually use that material
> was granted, but as the paid-for work was useless without a license to use
> it, a license was implied.  That doesn't seem relevant where the work
> is being given out entirely for free; the creator has no obligation to
> anyone else to grant a license to make the library's release useful.
> (For a commercial SDK, this would seem to apply to header files.)

So now the degree of protection by copyright depends on how much you
charge for it?  What if someone gets paid to develop open source?

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com