4 ms·

> Google hits me with a lawsuit for violating the SSO of the REST API as implemented by the Google Web Services executable and source. No, it doesn't work like

by pron 7y ago

> Google hits me with a lawsuit for violating the SSO of the REST API as implemented by the Google Web Services executable and source. No, it doesn't work like that, just as if you implement an algorithm that's at the core of another program (without deriving your code from that other program) you don't infringe on the other program's copyright. > Any protocol worth protecting will have a tangible expression they can point to whether it be code or documentation. I don't know how to explain it any better than I have, so I'll mention yet again that your point applies to algorithms, and yet they are not copyrightable. If you have a paper describing an algorithm, the paper is copyrighted, but the algorithm it describes is not. If you copy or translate the paper you may be in violation of its copyright; if you implement the algorithm described -- you are not. Same goes for recipe books, by the way. If you copy the recipe you could be in violation; if you implement it -- i.e. cook according to it -- you are not. That the program is a fixed expression that manifests the algorithm or protocol is irrelevant. You are not allowed to infringe on the program's copyright, but the protocol or algorithm it describes are not copyrighted to begin with. > please use actual case law about software. Protocols are not software. SSO is irrelevant to them. Their relationship to software is the same as that of algorithms to software, and SSO doesn't apply to algorithms either, because they are not copyrighted works. Any argument you'd like to make why this case has any bearing on protocols would also need to be compatible with the fact that programs are copyrighted while algorithms are not. If you make an argument that would also cover algorithms you can know you've made a wrong turn somewhere.

monocasa 7y ago
Neither my example nor the facts of Oracle v Google are dependent on copying of algorithms due to both being clean room reimplementations with the minimum verbatim copying needed for API compatibility. Since you obviously aren't interested in a good faith discussion that doesn't involve you adding strawmen, I shall bid you good day.
- pron 7y ago
  I think you intentionally misunderstand my point or we're completely talking past each other. This case isn't about protocols just as much as it isn't about algorithms. The only relationship between this case and protocols is that in recent years some have taken to calling them APIs. No matter what the result of this case is, it will have no effect on protocols, just as it will have no effect on algorithms, or on bananas. From the perspective of copyright laws, these things are completely different categories, no matter what mental connections you can draw between them. I only bring up algorithm to help you understand that even though algorithms and programs have a similar relationship to that between protocols and code APIs, copyright law is not concerned with algorithms although it is with programs, so that same connection between protocols and code APIs is equally irrelevant to copyright law. But if you're not able to understand why programs are copyrighted but not algorithms, you won't be able to understand why code APIs could possibly be copyrighted but definitely not protocols.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    > if you're not able to understand why programs are copyrighted but not algorithms, you won't be able to understand why code APIs could possibly be copyrighted but definitely not protocols. The lack of copyright protection for algorithms was never in question here until you started bringing it up. I said good day.
    - pron 7y ago
      Protocols aren't copyrighted regardless of whether code APIs are for the same reason algorithms are not copyrighted even though programs are. Any argument you make that if APIs are copyrighted then so are protocols would also lead you to conclude that since programs are copyrighted, then so are algorithms. The latter is untrue, and so is the former. For example, you said above that a program implementing a protocol becomes its fixed expression, and so every implementation of the protocol would violate that program's copyright. Well, that same argument can be applied to incorrectly conclude that algorithms are copyrighted as well. Same goes for an argument about certain fixed strings. I've explained directly why those arguments don't work, but if you don't understand the explanation, perhaps seeing that your argument would also apply for algorithms make you realize you've made a bad turn somewhere. To claim that this case affects protocols you'll need an argument that cannot be used to claim algorithms are copyrighted, too. If it can be -- it's a wrong argument.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        > Same goes for an argument about certain fixed strings. The fact that you don't see the difference between copying an abstract idea like an algorithm compared to literal copying of the names necessary for the structure, sequence, and organization of the API belies your ignorance wrt to copyright. One involves no "this piece of the original is listed here in the reimplementation, verbatim" and the other does. So far you've given no examples as to why you think that literal copying of SSO of a clean room code library reimplementation isn't equivalent to literal copying of SSO of a clean room REST server reimplementation. Do you understand SSO arguments?

by pron 7y ago

monocasa 7y ago

Neither my example nor the facts of Oracle v Google are dependent on copying of algorithms due to both being clean room reimplementations with the minimum verbatim copying needed for API compatibility. Since you obviously aren't interested in a good faith discussion that doesn't involve you adding strawmen, I shall bid you good day.

pron 7y ago
I think you intentionally misunderstand my point or we're completely talking past each other. This case isn't about protocols just as much as it isn't about algorithms. The only relationship between this case and protocols is that in recent years some have taken to calling them APIs. No matter what the result of this case is, it will have no effect on protocols, just as it will have no effect on algorithms, or on bananas. From the perspective of copyright laws, these things are completely different categories, no matter what mental connections you can draw between them. I only bring up algorithm to help you understand that even though algorithms and programs have a similar relationship to that between protocols and code APIs, copyright law is not concerned with algorithms although it is with programs, so that same connection between protocols and code APIs is equally irrelevant to copyright law. But if you're not able to understand why programs are copyrighted but not algorithms, you won't be able to understand why code APIs could possibly be copyrighted but definitely not protocols.
- monocasa 7y ago
  > if you're not able to understand why programs are copyrighted but not algorithms, you won't be able to understand why code APIs could possibly be copyrighted but definitely not protocols. The lack of copyright protection for algorithms was never in question here until you started bringing it up. I said good day.
  - pron 7y ago
    Protocols aren't copyrighted regardless of whether code APIs are for the same reason algorithms are not copyrighted even though programs are. Any argument you make that if APIs are copyrighted then so are protocols would also lead you to conclude that since programs are copyrighted, then so are algorithms. The latter is untrue, and so is the former. For example, you said above that a program implementing a protocol becomes its fixed expression, and so every implementation of the protocol would violate that program's copyright. Well, that same argument can be applied to incorrectly conclude that algorithms are copyrighted as well. Same goes for an argument about certain fixed strings. I've explained directly why those arguments don't work, but if you don't understand the explanation, perhaps seeing that your argument would also apply for algorithms make you realize you've made a bad turn somewhere. To claim that this case affects protocols you'll need an argument that cannot be used to claim algorithms are copyrighted, too. If it can be -- it's a wrong argument.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      > Same goes for an argument about certain fixed strings. The fact that you don't see the difference between copying an abstract idea like an algorithm compared to literal copying of the names necessary for the structure, sequence, and organization of the API belies your ignorance wrt to copyright. One involves no "this piece of the original is listed here in the reimplementation, verbatim" and the other does. So far you've given no examples as to why you think that literal copying of SSO of a clean room code library reimplementation isn't equivalent to literal copying of SSO of a clean room REST server reimplementation. Do you understand SSO arguments?