[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linux and GPLv2

On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:25:39AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
> Troll editing. 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?

I don't know about Brazilian law.

However, for U.S. law, this isn't necessarily the case.

A key feature of U.S. copyright law is that it's creative expression
which is being protected -- not form or function.

In other words, if the software in question provides some other
interface then U.S. law overriding copyright for interface purposes
probably wouldn't apply.  [A strong legal case could be made here,
though I don't think anyone has actually taken this particular
issue to court.]  On the other hand, in a case where this mattered,
the .h files would not probably not be considered in isolation.

You could say that copyright law does not factor issues on functional
boundaries, except as a notational convenience.  Instead, in the
context of copyright, issues are factored on creative boundaries.


Reply to: