www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Is it OK to remove MIT header in this case?
Date Thu, 27 Apr 2017 05:29:51 GMT
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>

> Roy T. Fielding wrote on Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:15:30 -0700:
> > As a separate issue, extracting a list of operational names from an API
> is
> > often considered non-copyrightable (even when the API is subject to
> copyright)
> > because those bare names are operational, meaning they are specifically
> > excluded from copyright to make way for patent law.  Note, however, that
> this
> > exclusion does not apply to the commentary surrounding those bare names,
> nor
> > the order in which the names appear in header files.
> >
> > Hence, if you want to extract a list of API names without keeping the
> original
> > content that is subject to copyright, the right way to do that is to
> extract
> > only the operable names and then reorder them alphabetically.
> Could you clarify what's the patentable thing here?  I parse you as
> saying the names of API functions are patentable while the semantics
> [which are typically independent of the entry points' names] are
> copyrightable, but I've never heard of _names_ being patentable.

Roy isn't saying that anything is specifically patentable here. He is
talking about the limitation on copyright law to give a clear field of
scope to patent law.

That isn't the same as saying this particular case is subject to patent.

View raw message