[copyleft-next] Fwd: Re: Modify Corresponding Source definition, mainly to delete 'install and run'. (14249c2)

Richard Fontana fontana at sharpeleven.org
Mon Dec 31 00:47:22 UTC 2012


On 12/30/2012 04:42 PM, Engel Nyst wrote:
> In my understanding of the Oracle vs Google trial, the APIs are not
> copyrightable. (ref: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1211.pdf).
> As such, I don't understand their place in a copyright license...
> 
> Please allow a IANAL disclaimer, for the following. I am using the
> criterium: can I write this file in any essentially different way?
> Answer is: no. (unless it contains original macros or abundant
> documentation perhaps). Cosmetic changes, even if I fully rewrite it,
> do not change that function signatures still have to be what they have
> to be, to work. If they're not copyrightable, then they're not
> licensable, are they?

That doesn't matter in this context. The "interface definition files"
are part of the definition of "Corresponding Source", which is
basically what you have to accompany a binary that you give a
recipient. CS needn't be copyrightable as to all of its parts (or even
any of them, but I can't think of a case where that would clearly be so).

As another example, copyleft-next (currently) includes in the
definition of Corresponding Source "a list clearly identifying all
Separate Works that were used in building and installing the Covered
Work". In typical cases, I would assume that such lists would not be
copyrightable.

GPLv3 states explicitly that Corresponding Source must be under GPLv3,
but I don't think that would cause problems in cases where some part
of the Corresponding Source would reasonably be assumed to be beyond
copyrightability. I just noticed a bug along these lines in
copyleft-next section 8 (option (ii) says CS must be under 'this
License' but option (i) fails to say this).

- RF




More information about the copyleft-next mailing list