" I.e. you can't take a C header file and delete the parameter names, and replace all the types with typedef'ed names and get a different API"
Of course, if you did so, the fact that you ended up with the same API means you have removed any expressive portions, and are left with purely functional constructs and short names.
". And under 17 USC 102, how you answer that question is to look at whether that is original and creative."
Sorry, but no. The fact that something is original and creative does not, by itself, make something copyrightable in any way, shape, or form.
"Of course, but something being hard work and requiring a lot of thought is indicative of whether it requires originality or creativity."
It 100% is not indicative of this.
It is hard work to compile address lists and phone numbers into the white pages.
It requires a lot of thought to think through physics and math problems, and write down equations.
Neither is subject to copyright protection.
"the concept of passing around file descriptors as small integers, etc, is definitely a creative expression, distinct from the underlying functionality. "
However, as a concept, it is one completely and totally ineligible for copyright protection.
> Of course, if you did so, the fact that you ended up with the same API means you have removed any expressive portions, and are left with purely functional constructs and short names.
That presupposes that there is nothing expressive in the structure of the API itself, beyond the names. But the combination and structure of calls in an API is an expression in and of itself, as evidenced by the fact that the same functionality (e.g. file access) can be expressed in many different ways.
> Sorry, but no. The fact that something is original and creative does not, by itself, make something copyrightable in any way, shape, or form.
I didn't say it was the only requirement for copyrightability. There's obviously the exclusions in 17 USC 102(b). But in addition to the "work of authorship" and "fixation" requirements in 17 USC 102(a), which I assume aren't in dispute, originality is what matters.
> It 100% is not indicative of this. It is hard work to compile address lists and phone numbers into the white pages.
Ditch-digging requires a lot of work too, and I'm not asserting that is creative, but I do think API design is a creative process that requires a lot of careful thought.
> However, as a concept, it is one completely and totally ineligible for copyright protection.
Sure, the concept of passing around file descriptors as small integers is not protectable in the abstract. But it's an expressive choice that, when weaved into an API, takes it beyond purely functional into a creative expression.
"That presupposes that there is nothing expressive in the structure of the API itself, beyond the names. But the combination and structure of calls in an API is an expression in and of itself, as evidenced by the fact that the same functionality (e.g. file access) can be expressed in many different ways."
By this argument, everything ever, including my shopping lists are creative expression and copyright eligible.
Copyright protection in software has never extended this far, and your argument is not particularly convincing (at least to me :P)
"Sure, the concept of passing around file descriptors as small integers is not protectable in the abstract. But it's an expressive choice that, when weaved into an API, takes it beyond purely functional into a creative expression."
We're going to have to agree to strongly disagree.
By your abstract arguing, almost everything can be found to be expressive as long as it's "an expressive choice". This would extend copyright far into the realm of methods and processes.
> By this argument, everything ever, including my shopping lists are creative expression and copyright eligible.
I'm not sure that necessarily follows, but if you do use creative expression in write your shopping list, why is it not copyright-eligible? Just because it's a "shopping list"? Where do you draw the line?
And what if you no creative expression is involved in writing some code... is it not covered by copyright?
Is a "Hello World" program copyright-eligible?
Is a FizzBuzz program copyright-eligible?
Is a library that implements atoi and itoa copyright-eligible?
Is a program simply implementing a detailed spec copyright-eligible?
Is a service implementing PageRank copyright-eligible?
> This would extend copyright far into the realm of methods and processes.
I'm sure you know this, but copyright expressly excludes protection for functionality (leaving that to the realm of patents), and isn't that what methods and processes are?
"but if you do use creative expression in write your shopping list, why is it not copyright-eligible?"
What would it mean to use creative expression to write a shopping list?
"And what if you no creative expression is involved in writing some code... is it not covered by copyright?
"
It is clearly not covered by copyright in that case.
I'd need to see specific code to answer the rest of your questions.
Copyright is not a binary thing. There is essentially a 'strength of protection' that goes along with it.
For example, you can have copyrights on compilations of works. Your copyright does not extend to the underlying works. Anyone can copy them (assuming they otherwise have rights).
"I'm sure you know this, but copyright expressly excludes protection for functionality (leaving that to the realm of patents), and isn't that what methods and processes are?"
> What would it mean to use creative expression to write a shopping list?
Make it rhyme? Interject humor? Use archaic language? :-)
The question is, of course, why would you ever bother when it's only ever going to be you who reads the shopping list? But that's not the case with APIs! APIs are made primarily for other people to read, understand and compose other programs with. If I were to design an API that I wanted other people to use (and I have), I'd try my hardest to make it as attractive as possible.
> I'd need to see specific code to answer the rest of your questions.
I did give a list of examples, but your next paragraph answers my question, in a way. I guess "hello World" is probably not copyright-eligible, but more complex programs are. My question is, what if a complex program was just a mechanical implementation of a very detailed spec?
As to the methods and processes bit, I'm not quite clear what aspect of those you fear would be covered by copyright. If it's the actual implementation, it's just the code, which is already copyrightable. If it's the functionality or the "idea" behind the code, it is explicitly excluded.
This brings me back to my general belief that copyright is not appropriate for protecting code. (Good) code is supposed to be as boring as possible! The actual creative expression in programming goes into how problems are solved, i.e. the "idea" behind the code, and that is explicitly excluded by copyright.
It would seem to me that the exemptions in 17 USC 102(b), reading its text, could certainly be interpreted so as to apply:
"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."
I could easily see an API being an "idea" or "method of operation". I have no idea how this squares with precedent.
Do you know, off hand, what excludes mathematics from copyrightability?
Of course, if you did so, the fact that you ended up with the same API means you have removed any expressive portions, and are left with purely functional constructs and short names.
". And under 17 USC 102, how you answer that question is to look at whether that is original and creative."
Sorry, but no. The fact that something is original and creative does not, by itself, make something copyrightable in any way, shape, or form.
"Of course, but something being hard work and requiring a lot of thought is indicative of whether it requires originality or creativity."
It 100% is not indicative of this. It is hard work to compile address lists and phone numbers into the white pages. It requires a lot of thought to think through physics and math problems, and write down equations.
Neither is subject to copyright protection.
"the concept of passing around file descriptors as small integers, etc, is definitely a creative expression, distinct from the underlying functionality. "
However, as a concept, it is one completely and totally ineligible for copyright protection.