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

Re: Linux and GPLv2

> Raul Miller <moth@debian.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
protect function.

> > 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
are not).

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.


Reply to: