[License-discuss] Copyright on APIs

[Richard Fontana]

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:19 PM VanL <van.lindberg at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:05 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> I believe one could reasonably argue that a reimplementation of an API
>> (necessarily copying the supposed expressive elements of the API) does
>> not fit this definition (even if it would fit the folk notion of
>> derivative work that the free software/open source community largely
>> seems to subscribe to).
>
>
> Quick clarification:
>
> Did you mean that "one could reasonably argue that a reimplementation... fits this definition" but that the folk notion rejects it?

No.

> Or did you mean that a reimplementation does not fit this definition" (as you wrote it) but that the folk notion accepts that a reimplementation is a derivative work?

Sort of: I can see how the folk notion of derivative work (which
evolved under the assumption that APIs were not copyrightable, largely
by people opposed to copyrightability of software interfaces as a
policy matter) could lead one to the conclusion that the
reimplementation of an API is a derivative work of the API. Though I
haven't really seen any indication that anyone subscribing to that
folk notion is actually seriously concerned about this being a
consequence of _Oracle v. Google_.

Richard