On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, marc fleury wrote:
> |answers to questions such as the one raised originally by Bruce Behlendorf
>
>
> that's one scary animal... the apache head is a comedian?
Evil twin brother. Jus
|answers to questions such as the one raised originally by Bruce Behlendorf
that's one scary animal... the apache head is a comedian?
marc
On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Angelo Schneider wrote:
> phil hunt wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Angelo Schneider wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > In Europe APIs are not "copyright able".
> > > No idea about the US.
> > >
> > > However if you publich them in a book, the book of course is
> > > copyright
phil hunt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Angelo Schneider wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > In Europe APIs are not "copyright able".
> > No idea about the US.
> >
> > However if you publich them in a book, the book of course is
> > copyrighted.
> > However you can not prevent anyone to write a software a
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Angelo Schneider wrote:
> Hi!
>
> In Europe APIs are not "copyright able".
> No idea about the US.
>
> However if you publich them in a book, the book of course is
> copyrighted.
> However you can not prevent anyone to write a software against a given
> API.
> Same is true f
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote:
> Even if a company were to argue successfully that its API is *both*
> expressive and substantive, and thus protectible as copyrightable subject
> matter, I would argue that access to the API for the purpose of preparing
> independent (compatible or i
> -Original Message-
> From: Lawrence E. Rosen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 11:24 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection
> Finally, one CAN use trademark law -- with all its strengths and
> weaknesses -- to
Hi all!
Rod Dixon wrote:
>
> >
> 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
> > fa
>> 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
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Fred Patrick wrote:
> 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 fa
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
becaus
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, sc
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 a
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 Micr
14 matches
Mail list logo
