4 ms·

> it would impact every open source project that tried to interoperate with any company's services, for instance. This is categorically untrue. The discussion

by pron 7y ago

> it would impact every open source project that tried to interoperate with any company's services, for instance. This is categorically untrue. The discussion is not about anything called "API" but only certain kinds of APIs (code APIs, as opposed to protocols like REST "APIs"), and even then there is fair use.

monocasa 7y ago
What about the legal arguments made makes a distinction between "code" and "REST" APIs like you're doing? I've been reading the decisions and haven't seen anything like that.
- pron 7y ago
  The legal arguments in any case pertain only to that case, but it is a necessary condition for a work to be covered by copyright is that it "fixed in a tangible medium of expression"[1], i.e. that there is some fixed text (or a picture, or an audio or video recording) that is the work (although once it exists, derivatives are also protected). This is true for a code API, but not for a protocol. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fixed_in_a_tangible_medium_of_expression https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fixed_in_a_tangible_medium_o...
  - gpm 7y ago
    How is a rest api document any less tangible than a source code document?
    - pron 7y ago
      What piece of text that is the REST protocol?
      - gpm 7y ago
        Here is a simple REST protocol: Send a GET request to some_website.com/some_protocol to get back a jpg of a cat I wrote it down, and thus it was "fixed in a tangible medium of expression". As I understand that requirement of the law that is all that is required. If I just told you that verbally, and we did not write it down, record what I was saying via a mic, or anything else, then it would not be fixed. No one does protocols like that though.
        pron 7y ago
        What you have here is a particular description of a REST protocol that is fixed, and indeed, if it fulfills the other requirements of copyrightability, it could be copyrighted, and I wouldn't be allowed to, say, sell T-shirts with that sentence printed on them. But if you developed a protocol and I asked you what is the work that you have produced, that work wouldn't be that sentence, but the algorithm it describes. The same applies to algorithms, BTW. If I write and publish an algorithm, it is possible that my paper and even the particular pseudocode I used is copyrighted, but that's not "the work" (of the algorithm) nor is it a part of it. That is why even though the paper is copyrighted, the algorithm itself is not, although it could perhaps be patented. As confusing as it may sound, in the US the situation is: the paper describing the algorithm is copyrighted, a program implementing the algorithm is copyrighted, the algorithm itself cannot be, but it can be patented. Whether or not code APIs can be copyrighted, they are different from protocols just as programs are different from algorithms, as a certain fixed piece of text is certainly an important part of the work. That may not be a sufficient condition for copyright, but it is a necessary one.
        gpm 7y ago
        If Oracle is right, copyright protects the "[not relevant to the case] GET [not relevant to the case] <base_url>/some_protocol [not relevant to the case]" and it would be copyright infringement. Well really I'd probably need to have a few more APIs involved, such that I have a tree structure similar to classes, but the point stands. All that this subdiscussion was discussing was whether or not REST APIs are fixed in a medium as required, they are.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    There's obviously code implementing the REST protocol that's copywritten.
  - int_19h 7y ago
    The moment your REST API includes any kind of validating schema, that will be the copyrightable "code API".
    - pron 7y ago
      That schema could be copyrighted, but not equivalent ones, because the protocol isn't its schema. That's like saying that an algorithm can be "fixed" by writing a program that performs it, but if you do that, only the program (and its derivations) are protected, not the algorithm (the algorithms can be patented but not copyrighted). A program (including its code API) is a piece of text, and then its derivations are covered. A protocol, like an algorithm, is an idea that could be made into a piece of text, but the US copyright code explicitly states that that idea itself is not copyrighted. For example, you and I could go to a sporting event and write down a description of it. Both of our descriptions are copyrighted, and any derivation of mine or yours are protected, but your description is not a violation of mine and vice versa, and neither is any other description by someone who saw the event but didn't derive her description from mine or yours. Similarly for software, BTW. If you look at what a program does and then write a new program that does the same thing -- that's not copyright infringement, as you didn't derive your program from the fixed work of the original.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        This whole case is about the "Structure, Sequence, and Organization" of the API. It's the abstract collection of API entry points, not any specific implementations. Yes, it's openly in conflict of previous definitions of copyright.
        pron 7y ago
        Yet again, I am not talking about whether code API is copyrighted or not; I'm just saying that regardless of the ruling, protocols aren't copyrighted. I said nothing about a particular implementation, but a code API, unlike a REST protocol, is a fixed expression. If that fixed expression is copyrighted, then what the copyright protects is a whole other discussion. Harry Potter is a fixed expression, but once applied, its copyright doesn't protect just a particular sequence of words, but various derivations of it as well (like translations). As to whether or not what this case is about is "in conflict with previous definitions of copyright," I have no opinion of the matter.
  - wtallis 7y ago
    I think you're confusing the "fixed text" requirement with the question of whether the Java language constrains the declaration of an API to a unique textual representation. The latter is more or less true, but the declaration that the compiler ingests isn't the only way to describe a Java API in writing.
    - pron 7y ago
      The two things are completely separate, but having a fixed expression is a necessary requirement. If I go to a sporting event and describe it in an article, then my article is copyrighted, and derivations of it are protected (translations etc.). But there could also be other people who wrote different original articles describing the same event, each of them is copyrighted, but none a derivation of the other or of mine. But the fact that all of those articles are different descriptions of the same match doesn't mean they're not all copyrighted, and that their derivations aren't protected. Each of those articles is a fixed expression, but the game itself isn't.
- edoceo 7y ago
  Me neither and I even used ctrl-f. It seems the impact could taint anything loosly called an API. I make an API that is loosly linked to three competing API around then same data. Some of this leads to each of us suing the others.
  - pron 7y ago
    Anyone can sue anyone over anything right now. The whole purpose of the court system is not to blindly apply any ruling to any other loosely coupled event, especially over the use of borrowed words, but to focus on the nuances and peculiarities of each case laid in front of it. That's what the courts are for, and why human judges and juries pass judgment rather than algorithms.
NobodyNada 7y ago
How is there a difference here between "code APIs" and "rest APIs"? Both are simply interfaces which allow two pieces of code to talk to each other, the only difference is the protocol used (HTTP vs the platform's ABI)
- pron 7y ago
  Because copyright law doesn't care just about the purpose of a creative work, but also about its precise form and medium of expression. Why? That's a whole other discussion.
sk5t 7y ago
They are the same thing. In time this should become apparent to you.
- pron 7y ago
  A story I tell you in a bar and a written story may seem like the same thing to you, but one of them is copyrighted and the other isn't. A feature that may seem incidental to you is an essential one to copyright law. To copyright law it matter a great deal exactly how some expression is made, and how it is fixed to some recording medium. In particular, it requires that there exists some particular piece of text that can be called the work. This just doesn't exist for a protocol (there are many original texts that could describe the protocol), but it does exist for a code API.

by pron 7y ago

monocasa 7y ago

What about the legal arguments made makes a distinction between "code" and "REST" APIs like you're doing? I've been reading the decisions and haven't seen anything like that.

pron 7y ago
The legal arguments in any case pertain only to that case, but it is a necessary condition for a work to be covered by copyright is that it "fixed in a tangible medium of expression"[1], i.e. that there is some fixed text (or a picture, or an audio or video recording) that is the work (although once it exists, derivatives are also protected). This is true for a code API, but not for a protocol. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fixed_in_a_tangible_medium_of_expression https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fixed_in_a_tangible_medium_o...
- gpm 7y ago
  How is a rest api document any less tangible than a source code document?
  - pron 7y ago
    What piece of text that is the REST protocol?
    - gpm 7y ago
      Here is a simple REST protocol: Send a GET request to some_website.com/some_protocol to get back a jpg of a cat I wrote it down, and thus it was "fixed in a tangible medium of expression". As I understand that requirement of the law that is all that is required. If I just told you that verbally, and we did not write it down, record what I was saying via a mic, or anything else, then it would not be fixed. No one does protocols like that though.
      - pron 7y ago
        What you have here is a particular description of a REST protocol that is fixed, and indeed, if it fulfills the other requirements of copyrightability, it could be copyrighted, and I wouldn't be allowed to, say, sell T-shirts with that sentence printed on them. But if you developed a protocol and I asked you what is the work that you have produced, that work wouldn't be that sentence, but the algorithm it describes. The same applies to algorithms, BTW. If I write and publish an algorithm, it is possible that my paper and even the particular pseudocode I used is copyrighted, but that's not "the work" (of the algorithm) nor is it a part of it. That is why even though the paper is copyrighted, the algorithm itself is not, although it could perhaps be patented. As confusing as it may sound, in the US the situation is: the paper describing the algorithm is copyrighted, a program implementing the algorithm is copyrighted, the algorithm itself cannot be, but it can be patented. Whether or not code APIs can be copyrighted, they are different from protocols just as programs are different from algorithms, as a certain fixed piece of text is certainly an important part of the work. That may not be a sufficient condition for copyright, but it is a necessary one.
        gpm 7y ago
        If Oracle is right, copyright protects the "[not relevant to the case] GET [not relevant to the case] <base_url>/some_protocol [not relevant to the case]" and it would be copyright infringement. Well really I'd probably need to have a few more APIs involved, such that I have a tree structure similar to classes, but the point stands. All that this subdiscussion was discussing was whether or not REST APIs are fixed in a medium as required, they are.
- monocasa 7y ago
  There's obviously code implementing the REST protocol that's copywritten.
- int_19h 7y ago
  The moment your REST API includes any kind of validating schema, that will be the copyrightable "code API".
  - pron 7y ago
    That schema could be copyrighted, but not equivalent ones, because the protocol isn't its schema. That's like saying that an algorithm can be "fixed" by writing a program that performs it, but if you do that, only the program (and its derivations) are protected, not the algorithm (the algorithms can be patented but not copyrighted). A program (including its code API) is a piece of text, and then its derivations are covered. A protocol, like an algorithm, is an idea that could be made into a piece of text, but the US copyright code explicitly states that that idea itself is not copyrighted. For example, you and I could go to a sporting event and write down a description of it. Both of our descriptions are copyrighted, and any derivation of mine or yours are protected, but your description is not a violation of mine and vice versa, and neither is any other description by someone who saw the event but didn't derive her description from mine or yours. Similarly for software, BTW. If you look at what a program does and then write a new program that does the same thing -- that's not copyright infringement, as you didn't derive your program from the fixed work of the original.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      This whole case is about the "Structure, Sequence, and Organization" of the API. It's the abstract collection of API entry points, not any specific implementations. Yes, it's openly in conflict of previous definitions of copyright.
      - pron 7y ago
        Yet again, I am not talking about whether code API is copyrighted or not; I'm just saying that regardless of the ruling, protocols aren't copyrighted. I said nothing about a particular implementation, but a code API, unlike a REST protocol, is a fixed expression. If that fixed expression is copyrighted, then what the copyright protects is a whole other discussion. Harry Potter is a fixed expression, but once applied, its copyright doesn't protect just a particular sequence of words, but various derivations of it as well (like translations). As to whether or not what this case is about is "in conflict with previous definitions of copyright," I have no opinion of the matter.
- wtallis 7y ago
  I think you're confusing the "fixed text" requirement with the question of whether the Java language constrains the declaration of an API to a unique textual representation. The latter is more or less true, but the declaration that the compiler ingests isn't the only way to describe a Java API in writing.
  - pron 7y ago
    The two things are completely separate, but having a fixed expression is a necessary requirement. If I go to a sporting event and describe it in an article, then my article is copyrighted, and derivations of it are protected (translations etc.). But there could also be other people who wrote different original articles describing the same event, each of them is copyrighted, but none a derivation of the other or of mine. But the fact that all of those articles are different descriptions of the same match doesn't mean they're not all copyrighted, and that their derivations aren't protected. Each of those articles is a fixed expression, but the game itself isn't.
edoceo 7y ago
Me neither and I even used ctrl-f. It seems the impact could taint anything loosly called an API. I make an API that is loosly linked to three competing API around then same data. Some of this leads to each of us suing the others.
- pron 7y ago
  Anyone can sue anyone over anything right now. The whole purpose of the court system is not to blindly apply any ruling to any other loosely coupled event, especially over the use of borrowed words, but to focus on the nuances and peculiarities of each case laid in front of it. That's what the courts are for, and why human judges and juries pass judgment rather than algorithms.

NobodyNada 7y ago

How is there a difference here between "code APIs" and "rest APIs"? Both are simply interfaces which allow two pieces of code to talk to each other, the only difference is the protocol used (HTTP vs the platform's ABI)

pron 7y ago
Because copyright law doesn't care just about the purpose of a creative work, but also about its precise form and medium of expression. Why? That's a whole other discussion.

sk5t 7y ago

They are the same thing. In time this should become apparent to you.

pron 7y ago
A story I tell you in a bar and a written story may seem like the same thing to you, but one of them is copyrighted and the other isn't. A feature that may seem incidental to you is an essential one to copyright law. To copyright law it matter a great deal exactly how some expression is made, and how it is fixed to some recording medium. In particular, it requires that there exists some particular piece of text that can be called the work. This just doesn't exist for a protocol (there are many original texts that could describe the protocol), but it does exist for a code API.