[License-discuss] proposal to revise and slightly reorganize the OSI licensing pages

Bruce Perens bruce at perens.com
Mon Jun 11 07:43:12 UTC 2012

What legal theory would make a user of an API a derivative work if the 
API is not itself copyrightable?

On 06/11/2012 12:37 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
> I belive I heard that his holding is that
> Google wrote or commissioned independent code implementations of all
> 37, leaving only the question of whether the designs and names of the
> functions in the reference API packages are covered by copyright.
> He said they weren't -- which does not strike me as very surprising,
> given the uncopyrightabilty of names and the idea/expression dichotomy
> (patent/copyright division).   Other than giving clarification that
> claiming an API is inherently copyrightable isn't going to fly, it
> doesn't seem likely to cast light on other areas of copyright law.
> In particular, it cases none on what suffices to create a new work and
> what is a derivative work.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bruce.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 266 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120611/66ed1b26/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4447 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120611/66ed1b26/attachment.p7s>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list