Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd May 2012 22:32 UTC, submitted by PLan
Permalink for comment 516862
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-25
I think it just boils down to how you acquire the header file to be honest. Let's say you write a header file for a library containing no functional inline code, nothing but interface declarations and constants. You then slap copyright on it.
If I copy the file and use it I would be violating the copyright. However, since the contents of the file are simply non expressive facts (and you cannot copyright facts) you could argue that copyright doesn't apply. This has always been the case, this ruling doesn't really change anything.
Or you could, instead of copying the code, simply instrument the library directly to discover its interface and then write a header that works the same way. The result would be the same, a functionally identical header, but clearly in the 2nd case you did not "copy" anything.
I think the EU ruling primarily applies to this scenario - i.e. recreating an interface (API) without having actually seen the copyrighted work (the implementation). It isn't new ground - reverse engineering was always legal (if done right) - it just strengthens existing law with another precedent. I think the only thing "new" is the part about not allowing licenses to bar reverse engineering.
Strongly typed languages like java store the entire class definition in binary form (java reverse compilers can recreate the source files almost line for line). Thus, the API is fully expressed in the binary. The binary expression of a compatible function/class prototype will very likely need to be identical to the binary expression of the original function/class prototype. So would the court still claim that an API is not copyrightable under those circumstances even when the language mandates the expression of such an API to be recorded the same way each time it is expressed as a binary?
The ruling states you are allowed to instrument and observe a piece of software in order to determine its functional workings, and that those aspects of the work are not covered under copyright. If you did so and documented its interface and behavior and then created an independent implementation you would not be violating copyright, because the copyright doesn't cover the interface or behavior.