Re: Linux and GPLv2
> Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Right, in the sense that copyright is about tangible forms of creative
> > expression, and it's not about functional mechanisms such as interfaces.
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:16:28PM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Mechanisms like header files, for instance.
Or like paper and ink: Copyright doesn't protect paper and ink.
Copyright will protect some things expressed in paper and ink, but that's
a completely different focus.
> If writing that story on the command line is required for using the
"required" means you're talking about function. Copyright doesn't
> > I was trying to say that just because something is a relevant interface
> > in case A doesn't mean that that kind of interface is relevant in case B.
> Who gets to decide what is relevant, and when?
At one level of abstraction, a judge. At another level of abstraction,
treaty writers and law makers. At another level of abstraction, the
copyright holder (who chooses what issues are worth pursuing and which
But as a general rule, none of them will be focussing on the mechanics
except as an incidental issue. Mechanics are a detail, like date
and time -- used to establish whether presented testimony is factual.
Beyond that they're not the subject of discussion.