3 ms·
I understand the logic of saying that the API itself is a creative work and should be copyrighted. Creating a solid, logical API structure isn't simple. But I
by seibelj 10y ago
I understand the logic of saying that the API itself is a creative work and should be copyrighted. Creating a solid, logical API structure isn't simple.
But I believe the API signature itself (function name, argument types, return type) should not be copyrightable, in the interests of the industry as a whole. Google didn't steal the implementation, they just reused the same function signatures to make their drop-in replacement of the JVM work with existing software.
If developers can't even have the API signature without being sued, you are seriously hurting competition. It's just reality.
- Spivak 10y agoBut, and I think this is really the main point, Google didn't just use the API signatures they used the API documentation to preserve the semantic meaning of those signatures which are necessary to make the API actually useful. I think Google could argue very successfully that literally just the API signatures should fall under fair use but that's not really what this is about.
- radicalbyte 10y agoThe semantic meaning of the signatures IS the API. The whole forms the interface. This includes bugs, weird behaviour, shortcomings.
- Spivak 10y agoRight! That's why I believe that Google's claim that it was 'just the method signatures' doesn't really hold up since they took not just the statement of the interface, but what each part does and how they interact. The only part Google didn't take was the source describing how to do it.
- magicalist 10y ago> but what each part does and how they interact That's not copyrightable, though. Maybe patentable, but that's a whole other can of worms.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- irq-1 10y agoIf I make a menu with the same items that your restaurant offers, it shouldn't be an issue of copyright, even if I preserve the "semantic meaning" of the menu items (copying the recipes, for example.)