Header file legal issues (was Re: process.h patch)

[Patrik Stridvall]

> One fly in the legal ointment is that while the headers may not be
> copyrighable, the shrinkwrap license may still be legal as a contract.
> There's a case where a court suggested that someone who buys a copy
> of a product that contains a shrinkwrap license agreement and unwraps
> it is legally bound to follow it, while the person who later finds the
> unwrapped CD 'on the street' with no such license is allowed to copy 
> the portions that are unprotected by copyright. 

If that is so, wouldn't it mean that if you have a pirated copy of the
headers
you can legally copy and distribute parts that are unprotected by copyright.
:-)

Anyway, you don't need to go to such extremes, since the legal status of
shrinkwrap licenses in Europe is much more doubtful, just have somebody in
Europe do it.

I can't see why something posted on wine-patches shouldn't be equal with
found on the street, in the meaning that things that is unprotected by
copyright can be legally incorperated in the main tree.

This is probably true regardless of the legal status of shrinkwrap licenses
in Europe, especially since it is IMHO entire reasonable, given existing
European cases, to assume that they don't have an legally meaning.

> It's unclear where
> the anti-trust issue fits in there.  

I pass, not my area of expertize. :-)
 
> Food for thought, anyhow...

Yes.