This is the issue I was hinting at. I do not believe that as a general
matter that APIs should be copyrightable under U.S. copyright law since
section 102(b) of the Copyright Act should exclude APIs from copyright
subject matter. Having said that, I admit the issue seems unresolved since
both
Could I get feedback on whether the tomsrtbt license is amenable (aside
from downside of 'yet another license')?
***
* If you base something on it, use any of the scripts, distribute binaries or *
* libraries from it,
In my view, an API is as much a collection of facts as your original message, as Stephen King's latest novel, etc. I think in most cases an API involves creative expression or at least some selection, arrangement or coordination of function names, parameter type(s) and return type(s) (of course
Chloe Hoffman wrote:
I think the real question is not whether an API is copyrightable but how
an API is infringed and what is a derivative work of an API.
I agree.
We now know that a house infringes its blueprints, but a cake
does not infringe its recipe, so there is no general answer to
I doubt whether we will resolve the copyrightability question. I think the
better view is that an API is not copyrightable subject matter. I also
think that viewing an API as such better serves the purposes of copyright
law. Even so, I agree that the more important question is if you assume
that
I am not sure I see how 102(b) should exclude APIs from copyrightable subject matter as an absolute matter. Surely some aspects of an API may fail because of various doctrines such as merger, scenes a faire, etc. (viz. sqrt()) but I am not sure I see how a full set of APIs should be excluded per
Well,
You can look it up in a standard law book I guess.
I have that not at hand and not the time acctually to do it, I'm in a
copyright case in court on monday still preparing my stand.
Angelo
Chloe Hoffman wrote:
Not to sound harsh but..Do you have any support for these
"Chloe Hoffman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
pages./P PI think the real question is not whether an API is copyrightable
but how an API is infringed and what is a derivative work of an
API.
You admit that some parts of the API would not qualify as original.
Infringement would therefore depend on
From: "Forrest J Cavalier III" Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:
copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compa Date: Fri, 20 Apr
2001 15:05:12 -0400
"Chloe Hoffman" wrote
pages.
I think the real question is not whether an API is
From: Tom Oehser [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
* no way supercedes or nullifies any other protections on the component
parts *
* such as the BSD and GPL copyrights which apply to practically
everything!!! *
It seems to me to mislead as to the copyright ownership, mislead
as to the rights
Those are very good thoughts, if I may say so.
Rod
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
I am not sure I see how 102(b) should exclude APIs from copyrightable
subject matter as an absolute matter. Surely some aspects of an API may
fail because of various doctrines such as merger,
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
Do you have any basis for the "better" view? Also, how does it better
serve the purposes of copyright?
Well, I said I *THINK* the better view is... In other words, I was
expressing an opinion. The reason why I think it is the better view is
because
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
From: "Forrest J Cavalier III"
As I suggested, infringement I think is the nub of the question - not
copyrightability. In my view, there is certainly a significant difference
from an infringement perspective, assuming no express or implied license
***
* This copyright in no way supercedes or nullifies any copyrights or licenses *
* of the component parts, such as the BSD and GPL copyrights which cover many *
* of the programs, which confer specific rights and
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
I am sorry about joining the discussion late. This sounds interesting.
Brian, do you mind clarifying your question without rehashing what has been
discussed? I do not want to bore those who have followed the thread, but
what do you mean by
On Friday April 20 2001 07:37 pm, Dave J Woolley wrote:
From: Tom Oehser [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
* no way supercedes or nullifies any other protections on the component
parts *
* such as the BSD and GPL copyrights which apply to practically
everything!!! *
It seems to me to
I have a slightly different question about API's and copyrights.
Suppose one
has an API that acts as a specification for access to a library
and perhaps
a sample implementation. I dont care if someone creates another
implementation of the API, in fact I want to encourage other people to do
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. wrote:
I am sorry about joining the discussion late. This sounds interesting.
Brian, do you mind clarifying your question without rehashing what has been
discussed? I do not want to bore those who have followed the
18 matches
Mail list logo
