[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: ALWAYS FREE?
From:       Bernd Gehrmann <bernd () physik ! hu-berlin ! de>
Date:       1999-09-14 15:43:41
[Download RAW message or body]

> > That's exactly my point: Since the idl file only represents
> > an interface, there is no point in trying to impose a
> > copyright on it. Except if you want to spread FUD about
> > the conditions under which the interface can be used.
 
> Well, there is a copyright on it. That's automatic.

No. Interfaces are not copyrightable. If that would be the
case, things like WINE would be impossible.
 
> The same thing happens with header files, which also define an interface,
> doesn't it?

First of all, header files in C++ do not define interfaces.
They contain all sorts of stuff like private variables,
private methods, templates and inline functions. So if
you include a C++ in your program, then the executable
contains code from the header file. If this exceeds what
is usually considered fair use, then you have to comply
with the license conditions of the header. That's e. g.
the reason why putting a template library under the LGPL
is a bad idea (and in fact, libstdc++ is not under the LGPL).

Second, the purpose of a copyright notice in a header file
is that it tells you about the conditions under which you
can link with a library. For using a CORBA service, you
don't link with a library (you may link with a library
like libkded that wraps the service. In that case the
respective library deserves a copyright notice). An IDL file
specifies some kind of protocol between applications which 
could even reside on different computers in different 
countries. Copyrighting it would be like copyrighting http 
or nntp.

Bernd.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]