copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compatiblewit

Sat Apr 21 14:28:41 UTC 2001

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
> > 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 se. I find it hard to distinguish an API from a "computer
> > program" - if APIs fail under 102(b) then shouldn't computer programs in

An API is not THE program.
A POSIX compliant kernal (or his calling interface) all suport the same
API, POSIX.

The standard C library and the glibc have a lot of "functions" in
common.

The command line options of the command "ls" or for simplicity a command
like "rm" are mre or less the same in the same UNIX family.

THAT is an API.

Of course one can write a replacement for glibc exposing the same API.
Of course one can write a kernal which has a calling interface which is
identical to that of POSIX.
Of course one can write a replacement for "ls" or "rm" which accept the
same command line options (and serve the same purpose).

An API is in my sence a LANGUAGE. Take it as an mathematical language if
you like, a language can not be copyrighted. 

The other posts I saw regarding this thread (about Adope, Psotscript and
PDF, and Sun/Microsoft JAVA) are in my opinion Trademark issues.

The same is true if you go and call a kernal POSIX compliant. I don't
know if POSIX is a trademark.

The only thing which is in general copyrightable, is CONTENT.
The only thing which is in general(exceptions exist e.g. in the US)
patent able is a PROCESS in conjunction whith the artifact which is
created by performing it. (Same process for different purpose is not
affected, same artifact created in a different way is not affected -
except that artifact is copyrighted)
The only thing wich can get trademarked are (artificial) names used in
public (business) affairs (where the names reffer to an artifact or an
business).

Well, I'm not a lawyer and I simplificated it a bit. (Also I'm from
germany, a lot of stuff is different here than in the rest of the world,
outside europe)

However I work in copyright relevant areas for 10 years now .... 

Finaly: JAVA is a trademark, so if GNU CLASSPATH would call it self
JAVA, than there would be trouble.

Regards!

    Angelo

> > general fail also because they comprise an idea, process, method, etc.? I
> > see both as expressions, not the idea themselves. I think the tougher
> > issue is infringement/derivative works (leave alone implied/express
> > licenses, estoppels, etc.). Just some thoughts....
> >
> > >From: Rod Dixon
> > >To: Angelo Schneider
> > >CC: ,
> > >Subject: Re: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection
> > compatible wit
> > >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:12:13 -0400 (EDT)
> > >
> > >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 Microsoft and Sun Microsystems are two well known developers who
> > >claim copyright interests in APIs; Microsoft for Windows, and Sun for
> > >Java.
> > >
> > >Rod
> > >
> > >
> > >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 for data formats. (In Europe dataformats e.g. a flat
> > file
> > > > format for a word processor are not copyright able)
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Angelo
> > > >
> > > > Forrest J Cavalier III wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > Von: Forrest J Cavalier III[SMTP:FORREST at MIBSOFTWARE.COM]
> > > > > > Gesendet: Freitag, 20. April 2001 13:50:06
> > > > > > An: license-discuss at opensource.org
> > > > > > Cc: forrest at mibsoftware.com
> > > > > > Betreff: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection
> > compatible wit
> > > > > > Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > How can you copyright an API? Isn't it simply a
> > > > > collection of facts?
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps you could copyright the formal parameter
> > > > > names, and certainly the documentation in a header
> > > > > file.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the facts of
> > > > > function name,
> > > > > return type(s)
> > > > > parameter type(s)
> > > > > are just facts. There is no creative expression involved.
> > > > >
> > > > > Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824
> > > > > http://www.rocketaware.com/ has over 30,000 links to
> > > > > source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML Angelo.Schneider at oomentor.de
> > > > Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465
> > > > 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________________
> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> >
> >
> >

-- 

Please support a software patent free EU, visit 
                             http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Angelo Schneider         OOAD/UML         Angelo.Schneider at oomentor.de
Putlitzstr. 24       Patterns/FrameWorks          Fon: +49 721 9812465
76137 Karlsruhe           C++/JAVA                Fax: +49 721 9812467