> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Right, in the sense that copyright is about tangible forms of creative > > expression, and it's not about functional mechanisms such as interfaces.
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:16:28PM +0200, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Mechanisms like header files, for instance. Or like paper and ink: Copyright doesn't protect paper and ink. Copyright will protect some things expressed in paper and ink, but that's a completely different focus. > If writing that story on the command line is required for using the ... "required" means you're talking about function. Copyright doesn't protect function. > > I was trying to say that just because something is a relevant interface > > in case A doesn't mean that that kind of interface is relevant in case B. > > Who gets to decide what is relevant, and when? At one level of abstraction, a judge. At another level of abstraction, treaty writers and law makers. At another level of abstraction, the copyright holder (who chooses what issues are worth pursuing and which are not). But as a general rule, none of them will be focussing on the mechanics except as an incidental issue. Mechanics are a detail, like date and time -- used to establish whether presented testimony is factual. Beyond that they're not the subject of discussion. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
