RMS on Copyrightability of APIs

One way to read the case is that the defendant tried to argue that the OS (as compiled into object code) was so simple that it did not possess the requisite creativity necessary for copyrightability. Remember, we're not talking about a modern, multi-million line kernel, but an extremely simple OS doing basic I/O in way almost entirely dictated by the hardware (i.e. dictated under the circumstances). The creativity involved here is arguably commensurate with that which goes into creating an API. The amount of code we're talking about here is substantially less than many header files today, and certainly far less than the Java API. If something lacks sufficient creativity than verbatim copying is of no matter. This is why Google and RMS argue that Google can basically copy kernel headers files verbatim, strip the GPL notice and, somewhat ironically, affix their own license.

In this case, that argument about simplicity and lack of creativity failed miserably. Our concepts of operating systems has changed considerably over the past 30+ years, so today the case on its face doesn't look like it's concerned with APIs per se. In any event, the questions and holdings of the case make it poorly suited to use in a brief in a real case. But because the question of copyrightability of APIs has received little actual attention in the courts, this case still stands out in the academic literature.