Re: Linux and GPLv2
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,
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.