<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
On 7/2/2019 11:25 AM, VanL wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFQvZEPkCqBjrofsFrcZGStYKXH4Odqi2GsffvAVwJT9NJM71Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>There are two issues here. I don't think anyone would argue
that APIs are not protectable under any IP law. They may be
protectable under copyright law, under patent law, or both. So
1) What is licenseable about an API under copyright law? and
2) What is licenseable about an API under patent law?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1) With regard to copyrights, and as broadly identified by
Luis, the key question is whether the API is part of the
"Work":<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:20
AM Luis Villa <<a href="mailto:luis@lu.is"
moz-do-not-send="true">luis@lu.is</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 5:34 PM Lawrence
Rosen <<a href="mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">lrosen@rosenlaw.com</a>>
wrote<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div
class="gmail-m_8490314287432321443gmail-m_-5007659256005759750WordSection1"><span
style="font-size:12pt"></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span
style="font-size:12pt">Pam Chestek asked:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span
style="font-size:12pt">> How do you know
where the line is?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">I
believe the line is actual copying of the
expressive source code.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I dislike this, but the Federal Circuit would tell
you that the APIs are expressive source code. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If the API is part of the "Work" for copyright purposes,
then copying the API is subject to copyleft *under any
copyleft license, currently-accepted licenses included.*</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would love someone to give a non-policy response to
this point. As Larry noted, this is roughly what the FSF has
been arguing for 20 years as "strong copyleft." As argued
by the <a
href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">FSF FAQ</a>, the inclusion of <i>any</i>
code element from a copylefted source makes the entire work
a derived work. (See the the "Bison" and "plug-ins"
questions) As an aside, the FSF's position here is
consistent with analogous current law regarding what makes a
derivative work in a music compositions.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
The argument against this was always that "the identified
elements are statutorily excluded from copyright" under 17 USC
102. I don't think that is a sound legal position anymore.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">2) That brings us to the second point:
Patents. This point is being largely ignored, because for a
long time copyright was seen as the prime mover As has been
argued on this list, there is generally a consensus that the
OSD requires a patent grant. But that means that any "use" of
a patented invention (of which there are plenty in FOSS),
including the use of the API, is subject to the "use" right
under patent law.</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">It may not be the ideal policy
position, byt I don't see how to escape the conclusion that
the API is a licenseable part of a software work under
*some* law, and thus that the requirements of the license
(including copyleft) would accordingly apply.</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Thanks,<br>
Van<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Van, I agree with everything you say. But that doesn't answer the
same question as "is it open source"? Add to that the interesting
possibility that currently-existing licenses will now reach beyond
what everyone thought their scope was. Do we expand the meaning of
"open source" to match? Or do we just accept it as an unfortunate
outcome but not embrace it?<br>
<br>
Pam <br>
<br>
Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
</body>
</html>