decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
I am no troll...I have lurked here for a very long time... | 249 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I am no troll...I have lurked here for a very long time...
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 31 2013 @ 09:11 AM EDT
Thank you for the opening ad hominem.

"Hint - an api and source code are two completely different things - a
statement about one cannot be used to reason about the other ..."

This is where your mistake and misunderstanding about my logic comes in.

An API and source code are not two completely different things, they are
inseparable.

Firstly an API is not a thing. You can't point at the source code, your program,
or the documentation and say 'that is an API'. It is not, it is merely
information.

Secondly for the abstract concept BSD Sockets API, to have usefulness it is
necessary to have source code and binary code (well source code is not entirely
necessary, but that is splitting hairs....)

The BSD sockets API is not "free" of copyright because of generosity
or openness.

If you wish to have available to you a genuine true BSD sockets API, then you
must download the BSD SOckets API source code (copyrighted and under license)
and then compile it. Even then, what you have compiled the actual binary code
that is going to get called when your program executes an API call, is not free
of copyright. Copyright extends to cover the binary compilation of source
code.

If you wish , you don't have to use the actual BSD code, but whatever code you
do use, probably copyright (yes there might be a public domain one), even if you
write your own it will be covered by your copyright.

The specification document of the BSD Sockets API is covered by copyright.

The user program that makes API calls is covered by copyright.

It is not true to say the BSD sockets API is 'free' of copyright.

It is not, every single part of that which 'makes' the BSD Sockets API concept
into something useful is subject to copyright protection.

The API is totally surrounded by copyright, because it is an abstract concept
and everything that matters to its conceptualisation is protected by copyright.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )