> > 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, M�ns Rullg�rd 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... -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
