<html>
<DIV>
<P>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 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.... <BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: Rod Dixon<RODD@CYBERSPACES.ORG>
<DIV></DIV>>To: Angelo Schneider<ANGELO.SCHNEIDER@OOMENTOR.DE>
<DIV></DIV>>CC:<FORREST@MIBSOFTWARE.COM> ,<LICENSE-DISCUSS@OPENSOURCE.ORG>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compatible wit
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:12:13 -0400 (EDT)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>This is the issue I was hinting at. I do not believe that as a general
<DIV></DIV>>matter that APIs should be copyrightable under U.S. copyright law since
<DIV></DIV>>section 102(b) of the Copyright Act should exclude APIs from copyright
<DIV></DIV>>subject matter. Having said that, I admit the issue seems unresolved since
<DIV></DIV>>both Microsoft and Sun Microsystems are two well known developers who
<DIV></DIV>>claim copyright interests in APIs; Microsoft for Windows, and Sun for
<DIV></DIV>>Java.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Rod
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Angelo Schneider wrote:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> > Hi!
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > In Europe APIs are not "copyright able".
<DIV></DIV>> > No idea about the US.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > However if you publich them in a book, the book of course is
<DIV></DIV>> > copyrighted.
<DIV></DIV>> > However you can not prevent anyone to write a software against a given
<DIV></DIV>> > API.
<DIV></DIV>> > Same is true for data formats. (In Europe dataformats e.g. a flat file
<DIV></DIV>> > format for a word processor are not copyright able)
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > Regards,
<DIV></DIV>> > Angelo
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > Forrest J Cavalier III wrote:
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > > > ----------
<DIV></DIV>> > > > Von: Forrest J Cavalier III[SMTP:FORREST@MIBSOFTWARE.COM]
<DIV></DIV>> > > > Gesendet: Freitag, 20. April 2001 13:50:06
<DIV></DIV>> > > > An: license-discuss@opensource.org
<DIV></DIV>> > > > Cc: forrest@mibsoftware.com
<DIV></DIV>> > > > Betreff: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compatible wit
<DIV></DIV>> > > > Diese Nachricht wurde automatisch von einer Regel weitergeleitet.
<DIV></DIV>> > > >
<DIV></DIV>> > > How can you copyright an API? Isn't it simply a
<DIV></DIV>> > > collection of facts?
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > > Perhaps you could copyright the formal parameter
<DIV></DIV>> > > names, and certainly the documentation in a header
<DIV></DIV>> > > file.
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > > But the facts of
<DIV></DIV>> > > function name,
<DIV></DIV>> > > return type(s)
<DIV></DIV>> > > parameter type(s)
<DIV></DIV>> > > are just facts. There is no creative expression involved.
<DIV></DIV>> > >
<DIV></DIV>> > > Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824
<DIV></DIV>> > > http://www.rocketaware.com/ has over 30,000 links to
<DIV></DIV>> > > source, libraries, functions, applications, and documentation.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
<DIV></DIV>> > Angelo Schneider OOAD/UML Angelo.Schneider@oomentor.de
<DIV></DIV>> > Putlitzstr. 24 Patterns/FrameWorks Fon: +49 721 9812465
<DIV></DIV>> > 76137 Karlsruhe C++/JAVA Fax: +49 721 9812467
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV><br clear=all><hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href="http://explorer.msn.com">http://explorer.msn.com</a><br></p></html>