On 11/05/14 21:36, Magnus Olsen wrote:
Hi Short version In EU have already decided that api is not copyrighted. it was a trial a company implement api/function of another program and program languaes. and it is fair use and you have right reimplement.
My reading of directive 2009/24/EC contradicts your interpretation. Article 1 2. says: "Protection in accordance with this Directive shall apply to the expression in any form of a computer program. Ideas and principles which underlie any element of a computer program, including those which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under this Directive." This text seems to carefully carve out "ideas and principles" that "underlie its interfaces" as not being protected, but it doesn't say interfaces as expressions aren't protected. I've not (yet) looked at the individual member states laws that implement the directive but I doubt the wording will vary significantly from this. Article 6 2.(c) prevents the use of interoperability interfaces deduced from inspecting the operation of copyrighted works: "to be used for the development, production or marketing of a computer program substantially similar in its expression, or for any other act which infringes copyright." In other words I read this as saying it is legal to use reverse-engineered interface specifications of a 'server' in order to create a 'client', but not to create another 'server' implementation, nor to publish documentation of the interface. In the Oracle vs Google situation an analogy would be that it is legal to observe the external interfaces of the Java runtime (RT) library and Java virtual machine to create Java applications that interface with the VM and RT, but not to create another JVM or RT implementation. In the case of Apache Harmony its reimplementation of the Java Class Library API was based on the published Sun SDK Specification and the associated license which permits reimplementation that fully reproduces the specification and passes the TCK. Google stripped back and modified parts of Harmony, which is the basis upon which Oracle's law-suit has succeeded, since without permission via the SDK license Google had no other license to reimplement a reduced or changed API, if APIs are copyrightable as the appeals court has found. In the case of an API that is published, it seems to me that creation of a competing implementation may be infringing if the API documentation license restricts its use for that purpose, or, if the interface contains something other than "ideas and principles". I'm currently working on a GPL v3 project that may be affected by this decision and the E.U./U.K. law. Maybe Neil and Andrew can give their expert view on the current interpretation in the E.U./U.K. of this directive as it pertains to 'interfaces' and pointers to any case law?
