The new core.sys.windows

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d]

On 10/15/15 7:37 AM, Kagamin wrote:
> On Thursday, 15 October 2015 at 08:25:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Since Windows headers are just lists of declarations, I don't even
>> think they are copyrightable.
>
> Wasn't Oracle v Google case about API copyrightability? As I understand,
> Supreme Court and Solicitor General ruled agains Google.

I think Walter misstated what he meant. Of course any document is 
copyrightable. The problem is, however, that one can write such a 
document knowing what the names of the functions are, and this is not an 
infringement of the original copyright. The Oracle decision was based on 
the fact that the API file was identical or derived in the "structure, 
sequence and organization". That is, I'm assuming the API file was 
listed similarly to the Oracle version, and possibly had the same 
documentation. According to wikipedia, the supreme court declined to 
review the case, but it isn't over yet (I think the "reversal" was to 
remand the case back to the lower court to reconsider).

You can't copyright a *single* declaration. So if I tell you there's a 
function called CreateFile, and it takes these parameters, you can write 
a declaration in a d file, and it's not an infringement of the original 
header file. The word "CreateFile" can't be copyrighted by itself.

So I think what Walter meant was that it's not *worth* claiming 
copyright on an API that is just declarations, because one can just 
recreate the file without having to copy the original.

But if the file is clearly marked public domain, all of this is moot.

-Steve