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

Re: Linux and GPLv2

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.)

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: