On 12/30/2012 04:42 PM, Engel Nyst wrote:
In my understanding of the Oracle vs Google trial, the APIs are not
copyrightable. (ref:
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1211.pdf).
As such, I don't understand their place in a copyright license...
Please allow a IANAL disclaimer, for the following. I am using the
criterium: can I write this file in any essentially different way?
Answer is: no. (unless it contains original macros or abundant
documentation perhaps). Cosmetic changes, even if I fully rewrite it,
do not change that function signatures still have to be what they have
to be, to work. If they're not copyrightable, then they're not
licensable, are they?
That doesn't matter in this context. The "interface definition files"
are part of the definition of "Corresponding Source", which is
basically what you have to accompany a binary that you give a
recipient. CS needn't be copyrightable as to all of its parts (or even
any of them, but I can't think of a case where that would clearly be so).
As another example, copyleft-next (currently) includes in the
definition of Corresponding Source "a list clearly identifying all
Separate Works that were used in building and installing the Covered
Work". In typical cases, I would assume that such lists would not be
copyrightable.
GPLv3 states explicitly that Corresponding Source must be under GPLv3,
but I don't think that would cause problems in cases where some part
of the Corresponding Source would reasonably be assumed to be beyond
copyrightability. I just noticed a bug along these lines in
copyleft-next section 8 (option (ii) says CS must be under 'this
License' but option (i) fails to say this).
- RF