3 ms·

> Depends, if it’s code calling a console SDK API then you are bound by terms of the NDA to not publicly share it — forever. Even just function names! This is

> Depends, if it’s code calling a console SDK API then you are bound by terms of the NDA to not publicly share it — forever. Even just function names! This is not true. API itself (function names and parameters) does not hold copyright. Otherwise you wouldn't have open-source applications on any proprietary OS, since they have the function calls of proprietary APIs inside. What can be copyrighted are the header files itself: these you can't redistribute, as you can't redistribute the binary that is linked to the executable. Of course without these you wouldn't be able to compile and run the software, but you can reverse engineer the API from the function names and parameters and even the binary executable (because for an EU law reverse engineering for the purpose of substituting proprietary parts, that is this case, is allowed) and build a replacement for sure.

badsectoracula 3y ago
> What can be copyrighted are the header files itself: these you can't redistribute, as you can't redistribute the binary that is linked to the executable. Note that while the exact header file is covered by copyright, the "information"/"facts" the header file describes (e.g. said function names, parameters, constants, etc) is not - at least as far as EU is concerned anyway (BTW the case you most likely have in mind wasn't for substituting proprietary parts but for interoperability between parts - i.e. it would still be valid for substituting one proprietary part with another proprietary part). This is also why different compilers for Windows have a "windows.h" (or language equivalent) with each having its own copyright but describing the exact same API. (obviously this is for unsubstitutable fact-like information a header file contains and does not apply for any code like macros or inline methods like in C++ classes/templates)
ChoGGi 3y ago
> you are bound by terms of the NDA > This is not true. You usually have to follow contracts you sign.
- orra 3y ago
  Not where the law says such terms are unenforceable.

badsectoracula 3y ago

> What can be copyrighted are the header files itself: these you can't redistribute, as you can't redistribute the binary that is linked to the executable. Note that while the exact header file is covered by copyright, the "information"/"facts" the header file describes (e.g. said function names, parameters, constants, etc) is not - at least as far as EU is concerned anyway (BTW the case you most likely have in mind wasn't for substituting proprietary parts but for interoperability between parts - i.e. it would still be valid for substituting one proprietary part with another proprietary part). This is also why different compilers for Windows have a "windows.h" (or language equivalent) with each having its own copyright but describing the exact same API. (obviously this is for unsubstitutable fact-like information a header file contains and does not apply for any code like macros or inline methods like in C++ classes/templates)

ChoGGi 3y ago

> you are bound by terms of the NDA > This is not true. You usually have to follow contracts you sign.

orra 3y ago
Not where the law says such terms are unenforceable.