5 ms·

" I.e. you can't take a C header file and delete the parameter names, and replace all the types with typedef'ed names and get a different API" Of course, if yo

" I.e. you can't take a C header file and delete the parameter names, and replace all the types with typedef'ed names and get a different API" Of course, if you did so, the fact that you ended up with the same API means you have removed any expressive portions, and are left with purely functional constructs and short names. ". And under 17 USC 102, how you answer that question is to look at whether that is original and creative." Sorry, but no. The fact that something is original and creative does not, by itself, make something copyrightable in any way, shape, or form. "Of course, but something being hard work and requiring a lot of thought is indicative of whether it requires originality or creativity." It 100% is not indicative of this. It is hard work to compile address lists and phone numbers into the white pages. It requires a lot of thought to think through physics and math problems, and write down equations. Neither is subject to copyright protection. "the concept of passing around file descriptors as small integers, etc, is definitely a creative expression, distinct from the underlying functionality. " However, as a concept, it is one completely and totally ineligible for copyright protection.

rayiner 12y ago
> Of course, if you did so, the fact that you ended up with the same API means you have removed any expressive portions, and are left with purely functional constructs and short names. That presupposes that there is nothing expressive in the structure of the API itself, beyond the names. But the combination and structure of calls in an API is an expression in and of itself, as evidenced by the fact that the same functionality (e.g. file access) can be expressed in many different ways. > Sorry, but no. The fact that something is original and creative does not, by itself, make something copyrightable in any way, shape, or form. I didn't say it was the only requirement for copyrightability. There's obviously the exclusions in 17 USC 102(b). But in addition to the "work of authorship" and "fixation" requirements in 17 USC 102(a), which I assume aren't in dispute, originality is what matters. > It 100% is not indicative of this. It is hard work to compile address lists and phone numbers into the white pages. Ditch-digging requires a lot of work too, and I'm not asserting that is creative, but I do think API design is a creative process that requires a lot of careful thought. > However, as a concept, it is one completely and totally ineligible for copyright protection. Sure, the concept of passing around file descriptors as small integers is not protectable in the abstract. But it's an expressive choice that, when weaved into an API, takes it beyond purely functional into a creative expression.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  "That presupposes that there is nothing expressive in the structure of the API itself, beyond the names. But the combination and structure of calls in an API is an expression in and of itself, as evidenced by the fact that the same functionality (e.g. file access) can be expressed in many different ways." By this argument, everything ever, including my shopping lists are creative expression and copyright eligible. Copyright protection in software has never extended this far, and your argument is not particularly convincing (at least to me :P) "Sure, the concept of passing around file descriptors as small integers is not protectable in the abstract. But it's an expressive choice that, when weaved into an API, takes it beyond purely functional into a creative expression." We're going to have to agree to strongly disagree. By your abstract arguing, almost everything can be found to be expressive as long as it's "an expressive choice". This would extend copyright far into the realm of methods and processes.
  - throwawaykf05 12y ago
    > By this argument, everything ever, including my shopping lists are creative expression and copyright eligible. I'm not sure that necessarily follows, but if you do use creative expression in write your shopping list, why is it not copyright-eligible? Just because it's a "shopping list"? Where do you draw the line? And what if you no creative expression is involved in writing some code... is it not covered by copyright? Is a "Hello World" program copyright-eligible? Is a FizzBuzz program copyright-eligible? Is a library that implements atoi and itoa copyright-eligible? Is a program simply implementing a detailed spec copyright-eligible? Is a service implementing PageRank copyright-eligible? > This would extend copyright far into the realm of methods and processes. I'm sure you know this, but copyright expressly excludes protection for functionality (leaving that to the realm of patents), and isn't that what methods and processes are?
    - DannyBee 12y ago
      "but if you do use creative expression in write your shopping list, why is it not copyright-eligible?" What would it mean to use creative expression to write a shopping list? "And what if you no creative expression is involved in writing some code... is it not covered by copyright? " It is clearly not covered by copyright in that case. I'd need to see specific code to answer the rest of your questions. Copyright is not a binary thing. There is essentially a 'strength of protection' that goes along with it. For example, you can have copyrights on compilations of works. Your copyright does not extend to the underlying works. Anyone can copy them (assuming they otherwise have rights). "I'm sure you know this, but copyright expressly excludes protection for functionality (leaving that to the realm of patents), and isn't that what methods and processes are?" No.

rayiner 12y ago

> Of course, if you did so, the fact that you ended up with the same API means you have removed any expressive portions, and are left with purely functional constructs and short names. That presupposes that there is nothing expressive in the structure of the API itself, beyond the names. But the combination and structure of calls in an API is an expression in and of itself, as evidenced by the fact that the same functionality (e.g. file access) can be expressed in many different ways. > Sorry, but no. The fact that something is original and creative does not, by itself, make something copyrightable in any way, shape, or form. I didn't say it was the only requirement for copyrightability. There's obviously the exclusions in 17 USC 102(b). But in addition to the "work of authorship" and "fixation" requirements in 17 USC 102(a), which I assume aren't in dispute, originality is what matters. > It 100% is not indicative of this. It is hard work to compile address lists and phone numbers into the white pages. Ditch-digging requires a lot of work too, and I'm not asserting that is creative, but I do think API design is a creative process that requires a lot of careful thought. > However, as a concept, it is one completely and totally ineligible for copyright protection. Sure, the concept of passing around file descriptors as small integers is not protectable in the abstract. But it's an expressive choice that, when weaved into an API, takes it beyond purely functional into a creative expression.

DannyBee 12y ago
"That presupposes that there is nothing expressive in the structure of the API itself, beyond the names. But the combination and structure of calls in an API is an expression in and of itself, as evidenced by the fact that the same functionality (e.g. file access) can be expressed in many different ways." By this argument, everything ever, including my shopping lists are creative expression and copyright eligible. Copyright protection in software has never extended this far, and your argument is not particularly convincing (at least to me :P) "Sure, the concept of passing around file descriptors as small integers is not protectable in the abstract. But it's an expressive choice that, when weaved into an API, takes it beyond purely functional into a creative expression." We're going to have to agree to strongly disagree. By your abstract arguing, almost everything can be found to be expressive as long as it's "an expressive choice". This would extend copyright far into the realm of methods and processes.
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  > By this argument, everything ever, including my shopping lists are creative expression and copyright eligible. I'm not sure that necessarily follows, but if you do use creative expression in write your shopping list, why is it not copyright-eligible? Just because it's a "shopping list"? Where do you draw the line? And what if you no creative expression is involved in writing some code... is it not covered by copyright? Is a "Hello World" program copyright-eligible? Is a FizzBuzz program copyright-eligible? Is a library that implements atoi and itoa copyright-eligible? Is a program simply implementing a detailed spec copyright-eligible? Is a service implementing PageRank copyright-eligible? > This would extend copyright far into the realm of methods and processes. I'm sure you know this, but copyright expressly excludes protection for functionality (leaving that to the realm of patents), and isn't that what methods and processes are?
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    "but if you do use creative expression in write your shopping list, why is it not copyright-eligible?" What would it mean to use creative expression to write a shopping list? "And what if you no creative expression is involved in writing some code... is it not covered by copyright? " It is clearly not covered by copyright in that case. I'd need to see specific code to answer the rest of your questions. Copyright is not a binary thing. There is essentially a 'strength of protection' that goes along with it. For example, you can have copyrights on compilations of works. Your copyright does not extend to the underlying works. Anyone can copy them (assuming they otherwise have rights). "I'm sure you know this, but copyright expressly excludes protection for functionality (leaving that to the realm of patents), and isn't that what methods and processes are?" No.