Re: Linux and GPLv2
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 03:53, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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.
I don't know the details of the case at hand, but I remember the discussion
around errno.h from the TSG fallout: The basic reasoning there was, that if
one wants to implement a C stdlib an a unix-like system, a optimal errno.h
would always look similar to that from ancient BSD (which most "modern"
errno.h derive from). Since there is no way to be unixish/compatible without
defining the various E* to these values, having a errno.h file with the same
values is not infringing.
This, I believe, can be extended to all forms of compatability: If a header
file with certain contents is needed to use the interface of a library, it is
no copyright infringement. To be on the safe side, this has to be interpreted
very strict: Non-trivial comments and inline functions are probably not
covered.
Regards, David
--
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;)
-- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
Reply to: