4 ms·

I'm not going to argue whether I think APIs should be copyrightable, but I believe creating a good API is a work of creative design, and is artistic I design a

I'm not going to argue whether I think APIs should be copyrightable, but I believe creating a good API is a work of creative design, and is artistic I design an API for graphical coding and spend significant creative energy choosing the right words, calling conventions, result types to not only make something intuitive, but emotionally pleasurable to code with Sometimes I'll spend days writing out possible forms of the API — changing words, tense, syntax, until it looks and feels "right." These aren't arbitrary or purely functional decisions Do I want my users to "read" text from a file, or "open" the file? Do I want them to handle keyboard events in a simple global function or assign callbacks into a keyboard handler under each character name. How are those callbacks shaped? What's easy to understand? APIs aren't just restricted simple functions and types. Some may involve the creation of a custom DSL to make it easy to declare functionality in part of your system, or clusters of protocols that work together in very specific ways so users can implement a complex system atop them

andrewjl 6y ago
> I'm not going to argue whether I think APIs should be copyrightable, but I believe creating a good API is a work of creative design, and is artistic I disagree. I think the specification can be, but the API code itself is a mechanical translation of the specification into computer code. Note that abstractions, names, etc are conceived in the specification and are then translated into computer code. Even if you skip the specification step, as sometimes is done, you're then dealing with an implicit, ad-hoc specification. Edit: To clarify what I'm saying, the "creative design" aspect of what you're talking about and that I'm in no way denying, is meant to be protected via the patentability and not the copyrightability of the end product. The creativity is in the behavior not in the mechanical translation of the behavior for computers to use. > APIs aren't just restricted simple functions and types. Some may involve the creation of a custom DSL to make it easy to declare functionality in part of your system, or clusters of protocols that work together in very specific ways so users can implement a complex system atop them Indeed. Yet you're still describing behavior here. A DSL is an example of a specification of one language in terms of another. This is a creative work, I strongly agree! The difference is where does the creativity reside? I don't believe it's in the API code, but in the specification whether written or unwritten and therefore implied.
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  I think your definition of "creativity" is too narrow. Which is perhaps not surprising, since you say you're an engineer. ;)
  - andrewjl 6y ago
    I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote. The creativity that people commonly associate with an API is in the behavior of the API, not in API code. API behavior is no doubt a creative work. If you consider the API to be nothing but code, then your definition of an "API" is too narrow. Nothing I've said should be construed as denying the richness and brilliance found in the design of software and software-based abstractions.
- interpol_p 6y ago
  To be clear I am on the Google side of this argument But certainly the API code contains naming, which is a creative aspect of API design, and in this case naming is used by developers to code against either Oracle's Java implementation, or Google's. In order to allow this Google had to copy the naming created by Oracle for their version of the API in order to attract the large pool of developers who liked and were familiar with that design.
  - andrewjl 6y ago
    With respect to naming, I think the details of the Baker case make it clear that names are not copyrightable. Nevertheless I agree that naming is a creative aspect of API design. It's not a creative aspect of API code though! There it is just an affordance. The names that we given our APIs are inherent to their behavior and not necessarily the code. Some languages, such as Swift, even mangle API names when they are used so that their names are non-sensical without de-mangling. So why is the name important? It's important for us to understand what the system is doing, but not to the function of the system itself. This might not seem important for us when doing our work, but in the case of copyrightability it's an important fact based on precedent law.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> I'm not going to argue whether I think APIs should be copyrightable, but I believe creating a good API is a work of creative design, and is artistic But that's not what it's about. Lots of things are a work of creative design but not copyrightable. Like a recipe for chocolate chip cookies.
- VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
  But if you compile a bunch of recipes for chocolate chip cookies and publish it then it is
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    The compilation is. The recipe still isn't.
- interpol_p 6y ago
  Yes and I am on the Google side of this argument. I just wanted to point out that API design is a very creative area of programming

andrewjl 6y ago

> I'm not going to argue whether I think APIs should be copyrightable, but I believe creating a good API is a work of creative design, and is artistic I disagree. I think the specification can be, but the API code itself is a mechanical translation of the specification into computer code. Note that abstractions, names, etc are conceived in the specification and are then translated into computer code. Even if you skip the specification step, as sometimes is done, you're then dealing with an implicit, ad-hoc specification. Edit: To clarify what I'm saying, the "creative design" aspect of what you're talking about and that I'm in no way denying, is meant to be protected via the patentability and not the copyrightability of the end product. The creativity is in the behavior not in the mechanical translation of the behavior for computers to use. > APIs aren't just restricted simple functions and types. Some may involve the creation of a custom DSL to make it easy to declare functionality in part of your system, or clusters of protocols that work together in very specific ways so users can implement a complex system atop them Indeed. Yet you're still describing behavior here. A DSL is an example of a specification of one language in terms of another. This is a creative work, I strongly agree! The difference is where does the creativity reside? I don't believe it's in the API code, but in the specification whether written or unwritten and therefore implied.

enraged_camel 6y ago
I think your definition of "creativity" is too narrow. Which is perhaps not surprising, since you say you're an engineer. ;)
- andrewjl 6y ago
  I think you're misunderstanding what I wrote. The creativity that people commonly associate with an API is in the behavior of the API, not in API code. API behavior is no doubt a creative work. If you consider the API to be nothing but code, then your definition of an "API" is too narrow. Nothing I've said should be construed as denying the richness and brilliance found in the design of software and software-based abstractions.
interpol_p 6y ago
To be clear I am on the Google side of this argument But certainly the API code contains naming, which is a creative aspect of API design, and in this case naming is used by developers to code against either Oracle's Java implementation, or Google's. In order to allow this Google had to copy the naming created by Oracle for their version of the API in order to attract the large pool of developers who liked and were familiar with that design.
- andrewjl 6y ago
  With respect to naming, I think the details of the Baker case make it clear that names are not copyrightable. Nevertheless I agree that naming is a creative aspect of API design. It's not a creative aspect of API code though! There it is just an affordance. The names that we given our APIs are inherent to their behavior and not necessarily the code. Some languages, such as Swift, even mangle API names when they are used so that their names are non-sensical without de-mangling. So why is the name important? It's important for us to understand what the system is doing, but not to the function of the system itself. This might not seem important for us when doing our work, but in the case of copyrightability it's an important fact based on precedent law.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> I'm not going to argue whether I think APIs should be copyrightable, but I believe creating a good API is a work of creative design, and is artistic But that's not what it's about. Lots of things are a work of creative design but not copyrightable. Like a recipe for chocolate chip cookies.

VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
But if you compile a bunch of recipes for chocolate chip cookies and publish it then it is
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  The compilation is. The recipe still isn't.
interpol_p 6y ago
Yes and I am on the Google side of this argument. I just wanted to point out that API design is a very creative area of programming