3 ms·

But there's the rub: they are claiming the API is copyrightable, not just the code that implements it. Independently coming up with the code is irrelevant if t

• treis 8y ago
  Yes, I understand that. My point is that simply defining add(int, int) isn't infringement. You have to actually copy something for it to be infringement. Independently coming up with a small portion of an API is not copying and not infringement.
  • dralley 8y ago
    There's not much of a difference, practically speaking. If you can copyright the structure and organization of an API, then interoperability becomes impossible. If every API has to be unique enough that it doesn't violate the copyright of anyone else in the same problem space, you can no longer create compatible reimplementations.
    • jdironman 8y ago
      Its almost like trying to copyright a spoken language.
    • treis 8y ago
      >There's not much of a difference, practically speaking. It means you can come up with your own API design without infringing on someone else's copyright. >If you can copyright the structure and organization of an API, then interoperability becomes impossible. It doesn't become impossible. It simply means that people need to follow the license that the API has. If the Java API was valuable to Google then they can pay the creators a license fee to use it. If the license fee is too expensive or comes with unacceptable terms then don't use it. Write your own or use some other API with a more permissive license.