3 ms·
They're clearly different. In this example Google independently developed a language and made it compatible with the JVM. In the real world Google wanted Java
by treis 6y ago
They're clearly different.
In this example Google independently developed a language and made it compatible with the JVM.
In the real world Google wanted Java and didn't like the licensing terms. So they copied the Java API and from that starting point built out their own version of Java.
- CobrastanJorji 6y agoBut "making it compatible with the JVM" would involve implementing the Java standard library, right? Recognizing terms like "java.lang.String" or "java.lang.Math.max" and doing the right thing? To do that, aren't you creating a copy of the Java API?
- treis 6y agoNobody is arguing that you can't copy the API if it's fair use. Copying the API in order to make a copy of the software isn't fair use.
- gknoy 6y agoStrange, in hardware land I thought that a clean-room reimplementation of something (where you make something with the same interface -- the API of the hardware) was legal.
- pjmlp 6y agoOnly if the clean-room re-implementation was properly done with separate teams, proven in court that both teams never had any contact with each other beyond written specification architecture documents.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoDeveloping a programming language does not give you brownie points with a judge, and has no bearing on the matter. What you are suggestying is copying the binary API instead of the texual one. It is equally the subject of copyright. In the real world Google deleoped their own equivalent of the JVM, which uses different bytecode. This is technically more difficult than putting together a language. But that has no relevance to the subject of copyright.