<html>
<DIV>
<P>Do you have any basis for the "better" view? Also, how does it better serve the purposes of copyright? What happened to protection for authors for limited times? Surely non-copyrightable APIs are good for the 'open source' software (or are they?) but I am not sure if it is better as a general proposition.</P>
<P>Also, I am not sure I see the basis for the implied license to copy (or perhaps even the more important right, to create a derivative work) in all cases. Surely it is not in the interest of most software vendors to prevent copying/preparing derivative works of API (network effects and all that) but that does not necessarily mean those vendors rights are foregone. In many proprietary software cases no express rights have been given (contra see the license provisions in the Java APIs) nor could I see any such license being implied as necessary to the "use" of the licensed software (absent ambiguous or express language in that software's license).</P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: Rod Dixon<RODD@CYBERSPACES.ORG>
<DIV></DIV>>To: Chloe Hoffman<CHLOEHOFFMAN@HOTMAIL.COM>
<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 14:34:38 -0400 (EDT)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I doubt whether we will resolve the copyrightability question. I think the
<DIV></DIV>>better view is that an API is not copyrightable subject matter. I also
<DIV></DIV>>think that viewing an API as such better serves the purposes of copyright
<DIV></DIV>>law. Even so, I agree that the more important question is if you assume
<DIV></DIV>>that an API *IS* copyrightable, what next? The answer is that programmers
<DIV></DIV>>have an implied license to copy. Of course, that does not mean a
<DIV></DIV>>programmer ought to be able to copy an entire API for a given programming
<DIV></DIV>>environment, but it does mean that most copies of an API function or
<DIV></DIV>>routine do not exceed the implied license. (BTW, not to add to any
<DIV></DIV>>confusion, but my use of the term copy is in the strict copyright sense
<DIV></DIV>>that applies to software).
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Rod
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Chloe Hoffman wrote:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > In my view, an API is as much a collection of facts as your original
<DIV></DIV>> > message, as Stephen King's latest novel, etc. I think in most cases an
<DIV></DIV>> > API involves creative expression or at least some selection, arrangement
<DIV></DIV>> > or coordination of function names, parameter type(s) and return type(s)
<DIV></DIV>> > (of course I am not talking about the simple abstract concept of an API;
<DIV></DIV>> > I am talking about a set of developed APIs). Surely if an API is just one
<DIV></DIV>> > function then you have a de minimis problem. But let's take the Java API.
<DIV></DIV>> > Taking U.S. law as an example, I would think that after you take whatever
<DIV></DIV>> > material (functions, return types, parameter types, parameter names,
<DIV></DIV>> > etc.) that is not copyrightable (by virtue of, for example, the merger
<DIV></DIV>> > doctrine(the idea and expression merged into one and there is no other
<DIV></DIV>> > way of expressing it), the scenes a faire doctrine (only so many ways of
<DIV></DIV>> > expressing the idea) and being in the public domain) there would be a
<DIV></DIV>> > great deal of material left over that involved creative expression or at
<DIV></DIV>> > least serious selection, coordination, or arrangement. For copyright to
<DIV></DIV>> > attach only minimal originality is needed. I can't see the argument
<DIV></DIV>> > flying that the Java API is like a purely alphabetical white pages.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > I think the real question is not whether an API is copyrightable but how
<DIV></DIV>> > an API is infringed and what is a derivative work of an API.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > >From: "Forrest J Cavalier III"
<DIV></DIV>> > >Reply-To: forrest@mibsoftware.com
<DIV></DIV>> > >To:
<DIV></DIV>> > >CC: forrest@mibsoftware.com
<DIV></DIV>> > >Subject: copyrightable APIs? (was RE: namespace protection compatible
<DIV></DIV>> > wit
<DIV></DIV>> > >Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 07:50:06 -0400
<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>> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<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>