Re: Linux and GPLv2
> > 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.
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 04:15:57AM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Alternative to what? There can be no alternative to the full set of
> interfaces to the system. Are you trying to argue, that several
> interfaces exist, use of each one is protected due to the existence of
> the others?
For example: gcc provides a command line interface as an alternative to
rebuilding gcc every time you need to compile a program.
> Suppose there is only one interface, such that it, per your reasoning,
> is not protected. Now add another. Does this addition suddenly make
> the first interface protected? What if they were created in the
> opposite order?
That all depends on the design of the program in question, how it's
documented, how it's licensed, and so on...