phc-discussions - RE: [PHC] PHS API copyright?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <005201cf6c76$23d731c0$6b859540$@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 10:34:46 -0700
From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@....org>
To: <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: RE: [PHC] PHS API copyright?

The remand on appeal over-ruled the original judge’s determination that the structure, sequence, and organization (SSO) of APIs was inherently non-copyrightable.  

Note that API in the Java sense really refers to entire sets of what would be thought of as libraries.  

The C Language counterpart is not the printf signature but the entire stdio.h and its organization in a set of header files that are defined as part of definition of the C Language.  Note that the headers themselves are not part of the specification, and different implementations may have copyright notices on their forms of them.  That certainly applies to the ones that come with Visual Studio 2013 C++, which have all manner of Windows-specific cruft.  Of course a copyright notice does not make it true that copyright subsists in the material, nor its extent, but it would be very careless to willfully ignore such notices based on some personal theory.

The appeal’s court ruling is very clear and very informative.  It is quite possible to have a copyrightable organization of material when none of the elements are themselves subject to copyright.  This applies to works not involving software and it can apply to software as well.

Also, size doesn’t necessarily matter.  The example the appellate court gave was of the first sentence of “Tale of Two Cities.”  They could as easily have used Shakespeare, as in “To be or not to be.  That is the question.”  Or Descartes, etc.  Infringement of those copyrights might well be fair use, however.  That’s not the same as there being no copyright.  (Those famous expressions are now public domain, so copyright is no longer an issue.)

For software, there is an issue about functional language, and that could easily apply to a function signature (though that does not mean it must).  The original court claimed the SSO was not copyrightable, period.  That is what was over-ruled.  The appellate ruling provides a great account of how much API SSO was directly copied by Google.  

-   Dennis

From: Peregrine [mailto:peregrinebf@...il.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 09:03
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] PHS API copyright?

Even though no one in their right mind would consider the signature declaration to be copyrightable if the Oracle v. Google appeal ruling stands it will be. A public-domain like license is probably the best bet, since some countries don't allow works to be placed in the public domain.

[ … ]
> On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@....org <mailto:dennis.hamilton@....org> >
> wrote:
>
> See
> http://cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1021.Opinion.5-7-2014.1.PDF
> for an extensive account given in the ruling itself in the "Background"
> section.
[ … ]

Content of type "text/html" skipped