3 ms·
> Google argues that no one should be allowed to claim ownership of this kind of code. Imagine if we took Google's argument seriously and extended it. What if
by Kednicma 6y ago
> Google argues that no one should be allowed to claim ownership of this kind of code.
Imagine if we took Google's argument seriously and extended it. What if code were inherently less copyrightable when it is more structural and boilerplate-filled? That could be a great thing, but Google themselves might be surprised at how little of their proprietary code qualifies for copyright under this standard.
For example, would Google's protobuf schemata still be copyrightable? They're needed for interoperability, after all. Would Google's client-side code for Youtube and Google Docs still be copyrightable? It's delivered in textual form to the end-user. Would Android's interface code be copyrightable? Probably not, by exactly the same argument that Google has been making before the courts!
If Google wins, then not only does Oracle lose, but the institution of copyright might also lose, which is an exciting proposition.
- donmcronald 6y agoId rather have nothing copyrighted than everything copyrighted. I also don’t have a huge problem with interfaces = no copyright and implementations = copyright.
- flohofwoe 6y agoGetting rid of copyright restrictions for everything software-related (as a first step at least) would be a win-win for everybody involved.
- Zigurd 6y agoThat is an absurd position. APIs are facts, like sports scores, or the amounts and ingredients in a recipe. Those are not protectable, and making them protectable is plainly ridiculous.
- Kednicma 6y agoCareful there. Source code to a program is also a fact; it's merely the proof of some statement in some theory. This is one way to view the Curry-Howard-Lambek isomorphism. So, then, what is it about source code which would make it copyrightable again? Are systems like Metamath and Opentheory eligible for copyright or not? To me, the current copyright regime is what's "absurd" and "plainly ridiculous"; I am merely drawing conclusions based on what exists.
- Zigurd 6y agoReductio ad absurdum. The hint is in the name. That's the difference between law and math.