``broad'' protection requires only a ``substantial similarity.''

\section{No Protection for ``Methods of Operation''}

The First Circuit has taken the position that the AFC test is inapplicable 

when the works in question relate to unprotectable elements set forth in 

of derivative work for software in comparison to other circuits. Specifically, 

the

the Copyright Act, refers to the means by which users operate

computers. Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Int’l., Inc., 49 F.3d 807

(1st Cir. 1995).  In Lotus, the court held that a menu command

hierarchy for a computer program was uncopyrightable because it did not

merely explain and present the program’s functional capabilities to the

user, but also served as a method by which the program was operated and

controlled. As a result, under the First Circuit’s test, literal copying

of a menu command hierarchy, or any other ``method of operation,'' cannot

form the basis for a determination that one work is a derivative of

another.  As a result, courts in the First Circuit that apply the AFC test

unprotected elements. E.g., Real View, LLC v. 20-20 Technologies, Inc., 

683 F. Supp.2d 147, 154 (D. Mass. 2010).

\section{No Test Yet Adopted}

structure and taxonomy of the APIs were not protectable under copyright law.

Specifically, the court characterized the command structure and taxonomy as

both a ``method of operation'' (using an approach not dissimilar to the 

First Circuit's analysis in Lotus) and a ``functional requirement for 

compatability'' (using Sega v. Accolade, 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) and

Sony Computer Ent. v. Connectix, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000) as analogies),

Perhaps not surprisingly, there have been few other cases involving a highly

detailed software derivative work analysis. Most often, cases involve

clearer basis for decision, including frequent bad faith on the part of

the defendant or overaggressiveness on the part of the plaintiff.  

GPLv2\S\S~4--7 of the GPLv2 are designed to ensure that GPLv2~\S\S0--3 are

not infringed, are enforceable, are kept to the confines of copyright law but

also  not trumped by other copyright agreements or components of other

entirely separate legal systems.  In short, while GPLv2~\S\S0--3 are the parts

of the license that defend the freedoms of users and programmers,

GPLv2~\S\S4--7 are the parts of the license that keep the playing field clear

\section{GPLv2~\S4: Termination on Violation}

\label{GPLv2s4}

GPLv2~\S4 is GPLv2's termination clause.  Upon first examination, it seems

strange that a license with the goal of defending users' and programmers'

consequences of these forms of patent retaliation. As we explain below,

section 7 permits distribution of a GPL'd work that includes added parts

covered by terms other than those of the GPL. Such terms may include certain

kinds of patent retaliation provisions that are broader than those of section

2.

% FIXME:  probably mostly still right, needs some updates, though.

The wording in the first sentence of section 12 has been revised

slightly to clarify that an agreement, such as a litigation settlement

agreement or a patent license agreement, is one of the ways in which

available. The work that ``uses'' the library need not be provided in

source form. However, there are also conditions in LGPLv2.1~\S6 to make sure

that a user who wishes to modify or update the library can do so.

LGPLv2.1~\S6 lists five choices with regard to supplying library source

and granting the freedom to modify that library source to users. We

most common way currently used for LGPLv2.1 compliance on a ``work that

uses the library.''

LGPLv2.1~\S6(b) allows the distributor of a ``work that uses the library'' to

simply use a dynamically linked, shared library mechanism to link with the

library. This is by far the easiest and most straightforward option for