3 ms·

Disagree. When you write a Java statement you are clearly intending for certain instructions to get executed as a result of processing that statement. When you

by shawnz 7y ago

Disagree. When you write a Java statement you are clearly intending for certain instructions to get executed as a result of processing that statement. When you write a method signature, that doesn't represent any kind of intention for something to take place.

treis 7y ago
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, but all the Java code you write definitely does go away > When you write a Java statement you are clearly intending for certain instructions to get executed as a result of processing that statement. When you write a method signature, that doesn't represent any kind of intention for something to take place. If we accept this argument then that means APIs are more copyrightable than code. Instructions, as in the context of recipes or process definitions, are not copyrightable. If we say code is an intent for something to be executed then that's an argument that it should not be copyrightable. Saying that an API is different and not simply instructions means that it should be subject to copyright.
- monocasa 7y ago
  The code that ends up getting executed is formally equivalent to the JVM bytecode, but the method signatures completely disappear.
- btilly 7y ago
  The question is to what extent that content is functionally necessary. It is possible to have two different programs that do the same thing. And therefore the exact code used is copyrightable. But it is not possible to compile my code written for Oracle against Google instead unless the method signatures match exactly. Therefore the method signatures are more functionally necessary than the exact code.
- shawnz 7y ago
  Agreed, I think code is more like a recipe than an API is. But I don't think the parent was arguing that APIs should or shouldn't be copyrightable because of how they compare to recipes, they were just answering your question as to how they can be clearly differentiated from code.

by shawnz 7y ago

treis 7y ago

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, but all the Java code you write definitely does go away > When you write a Java statement you are clearly intending for certain instructions to get executed as a result of processing that statement. When you write a method signature, that doesn't represent any kind of intention for something to take place. If we accept this argument then that means APIs are more copyrightable than code. Instructions, as in the context of recipes or process definitions, are not copyrightable. If we say code is an intent for something to be executed then that's an argument that it should not be copyrightable. Saying that an API is different and not simply instructions means that it should be subject to copyright.

monocasa 7y ago
The code that ends up getting executed is formally equivalent to the JVM bytecode, but the method signatures completely disappear.
btilly 7y ago
The question is to what extent that content is functionally necessary. It is possible to have two different programs that do the same thing. And therefore the exact code used is copyrightable. But it is not possible to compile my code written for Oracle against Google instead unless the method signatures match exactly. Therefore the method signatures are more functionally necessary than the exact code.
shawnz 7y ago
Agreed, I think code is more like a recipe than an API is. But I don't think the parent was arguing that APIs should or shouldn't be copyrightable because of how they compare to recipes, they were just answering your question as to how they can be clearly differentiated from code.