Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RMS On Header Files and Derivative Works

Posted by timothy on from the but-I-said-'a'-first dept.

tomhudson writes "In this email from 2003, Richard Stallman says 'I've talked with our lawyer about one specific issue that you raised: that of using simple material from header files. Someone recently made the claim that including a header file always makes a derivative work. That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros with substantial bodies) to do that.' This should help end the recent FUD about the Android 'clean headers.'"

4 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. Re:How the fuck do we define a "substantial amount by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    How the fuck do we decide what a "substantial amount of code" actually is? Where exactly is the boundary?

    Free Software zealot: "substantial amount of code" == one line

    Corporate America: "substantial amount of code" == entire program.

    IP Lawyers: "substantial amount of code" == new Porsche.

  2. Re:Copyrights on facts by binkzz · · Score: 5, Funny

    #define ERR_ANY -1
    #define ERR_SEEK -2
    #define ERR_WRITE -3

    is not copyrightable.

    What about:

    #define ERR_PS3 0x46DCEAD317FE45D80923EB97E4956410D4CDB2C2

    :-"

    --
    'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
  3. Re:end FUD ? by Belial6 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I agree with RMS on this one. So, now you have it from the highest source.

  4. Re:end FUD ? by MachDelta · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Clearly this evolution thing needs more bug testing. I've created a race largely composed of idiots."