4 ms·

The trouble with this line of thinking is there's no viable way to make a legal distinction between interface and implementation. So either interfaces are copyr

• ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
  >So either interfaces are copyrightable, or code isn't copyrightable. Needs citation? I don't know where to start, but no, this case ruling in Google's favor would not make code uncopyrightable. The general idea is that there is only one way to copy a method's signature. There are many ways to implement the actual logic. It's hard to find a direct source since no one else is jumping to this extreme conclusion. So the test is, could you have done it another way? And since you can not have a function with the signature System.out without having a function with the signature System.out, it would be considered fair game.
• joshuamorton 8y ago
  >The trouble with this line of thinking is there's no viable way to make a legal distinction between interface and implementation. Why not? Abstractly, interfaces are the ways you interact with a piece of software. Implementation is how the software works. That seems like a clear distinction. You don't need to say "the interface is in the header files, the impl in the .cc or .cxx ones", specific facts of specific cases can be left to future courts. But it is absolutely possible to tell, in a generic sense, the difference between code and interface.