On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:19 PM VanL <van.lindb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:05 PM Richard Fontana <rfont...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> I believe one could reasonably argue that a reimplementation of an API >> (necessarily copying the supposed expressive elements of the API) does >> not fit this definition (even if it would fit the folk notion of >> derivative work that the free software/open source community largely >> seems to subscribe to). > > > Quick clarification: > > Did you mean that "one could reasonably argue that a reimplementation... fits > this definition" but that the folk notion rejects it?
No. > Or did you mean that a reimplementation does not fit this definition" (as you > wrote it) but that the folk notion accepts that a reimplementation is a > derivative work? Sort of: I can see how the folk notion of derivative work (which evolved under the assumption that APIs were not copyrightable, largely by people opposed to copyrightability of software interfaces as a policy matter) could lead one to the conclusion that the reimplementation of an API is a derivative work of the API. Though I haven't really seen any indication that anyone subscribing to that folk notion is actually seriously concerned about this being a consequence of _Oracle v. Google_. Richard _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
