This seems to be all related to header files for the bionics lib. Header files are there to act as a forward-declaration and inter-oper atibility layer for data structures and function prototypes, in order for consumers to actually be able to write up against an API. In other words, if Android wants to use the bionics library, it *needs* a header file.
Can you really copyright signatures of an API? Is the law really requiring that one meticulously copies prototypes and data structures manually by inspecting the actual source file? In that case, what if Google had written a header generator tool from walking the actual C files - same result no? God I hate lawyers. On Mar 18, 5:54 am, mP <[email protected]> wrote: > Google's attempt to purge copyright from header files has put mobile > developers at risk of being forced to reveal their own source code, > according to legal experts. > > This time it's not patents or Android's reinterpretation of Java that's > causing problems, but the Linux code that compiles down into Android itself. > > <http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/jump/reg.networks.4159/mobile;tile=2;pos...> > > Google publishes that code under the Apache licence, but derives it from > Linux source protected by the General Public Licence version 2 (GPLv2) > claiming to remove all copyrighted components before changing the licence. > Only it seems that Google's idea of what constitutes copyrighted content > isn't quite the same as that defined by US courts. > > At issue are the header files in the Linux kernel - a list of APIs and > macros that are used during compilation. These fall under the GPLv2 which > states that any work derived from them must also be published under the > GPLv2, but Google uses scripts to take out all the comments and extraneous > odds and sods, then claims that this removes the copyright. That enables > Google to publish the resulting code under the (less open) Apache licence as > though it were an original work. > > In his advice > (pdf<http://www.brownrudnick.com/nr/pdf/alerts/Brown%20Rudnick%20Advisory%...>) > Edward Naughton, of legal firm Brown Rudnick, highlights cases which have > come before the US courts and established that copyright can exist on an API > thanks to its innovative structure and design, which would seem to give the > lie to Google's claims. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
