On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:53:52PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:25:39AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote: > > >>My claim was: "*Basically*, bits in .h files are not > > >>copyrightable". Which I now solemnly amend to "The kind of bits you > > >>normally (>99% of the times) find in .h files in c-language based > > >>projects, and often (>50% of the times) find in .h files in c++ based > > >>projects, are those defining interfaces, deeming them uncopyrightable > > >>by current USofAn and Brazilian law". Better? > > > Raul Miller wrote: > > >However, for U.S. law, this isn't necessarily the case. > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 04:14:47PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote: > > I was referring to the fact that there is some case law in the USofA > > that deemed interface definitions, as present normally in .h files, > > uncopyrightable. > > > > HTH > > Those .h files were held to be not protected by copyright because no > viable alternatives were available to interface with the system.
I'd question whether that'd apply to a *free* system, anyway. I havn't looked at these cases (since I don't know which they are), but I recall a case that sounds just like it: an author of a work created (under contract) for a movie claimed that no license to actually use that material was granted, but as the paid-for work was useless without a license to use it, a license was implied. That doesn't seem relevant where the work is being given out entirely for free; the creator has no obligation to anyone else to grant a license to make the library's release useful. (For a commercial SDK, this would seem to apply to header files.) -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
