There isn't really a definition at all of what makes something eligible for copyright protection. What is and isn't covered is fairly arbitrary and informed more by history than logical derivation. Source code is typically viewed as a literary work and I see no reason API documentation would be viewed any differently.
> Following that logic...
I never said it had to be perfect, just that the reason for using the API is for interoperability -- WINE is exactly that. It allows software that was designed for Windows to run on Linux.
> I see no reason API documentation would be viewed any differently
It's not the API documentation that's at dispute here. It's literally the abstract "structure, sequence, and organization" of the API. And there's tons of ninth circuit case law that sso isn't copyrightable.
> I never said it had to be perfect, just that the reason for using the API is for interoperability -- WINE is exactly that. It allows software that was designed for Windows to run on Linux.
What's the test here that a court can use to make that distinction? And just letting you know at one of my former jobs, we modified our codebase to better run on Wine a few times.
There isn't really a definition at all of what makes something eligible for copyright protection. What is and isn't covered is fairly arbitrary and informed more by history than logical derivation. Source code is typically viewed as a literary work and I see no reason API documentation would be viewed any differently.
> Following that logic...
I never said it had to be perfect, just that the reason for using the API is for interoperability -- WINE is exactly that. It allows software that was designed for Windows to run on Linux.