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.