> "Literally referring to something by its given name" is like calling an API, not copying an API. I don't think they're that separable. I could take a program

> "Literally referring to something by its given name" is like calling an API, not copying an API. I don't think they're that separable. I could take a program that called Java APIs and, through a bytecode decompiler, reconstruct a header file for that API. In fact, I've done this very thing through reverse engineering C code. I've produced header files that allow interoperability with proprietary code. In this case, the function names and parameter orderings were copied, but the type names, parameter names, and overall organization were my original creation. I never looked at the original header file. Is that copyright infringement? Personally, I think any attempt to find hard and fast rules is going to fail, and the intent should be the most important criterion. (NB: this is not what I'm saying the law is, as I'm not a lawyer: rather, I think this is what the law should be.)