29 ms·

Well I hope then that Google wins against Oracle and we can finally say API's are not copyrightable...

• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• maccard 6y ago
  Even if that is the case, there's a difference between an api being copyright protected, and an api being redistributable
  • syshum 6y ago
    In what way exactly? Copyright law is the only method a person has to control how it redistributed, if there is no copyright on the API then no one has the legal authority to prevent redistribution.
    • maccard 6y ago
      Contract law. I'm not aware of it having been tested, but a contractual obligation not to distribute something is not the same as something not being copyrighted. See the post on HN yesterday about atlassian not allowing performance comparisons as part of their TOS.
    • zinekeller 6y ago
      Note: US law, obviously (these points are moot in EU due to strong laws for interoperability). Contracts can legally bind the developer/s with this, more so if it is a corporate entity. Even if Google wins this case and the APIs cannot legally acquire copyright protection, the third-party can sue the developer/s for disclosing trade secrets. The code legally is clean (IP-wise) at this point, but the developer/s have broken a contract with the third-party provider in doing so, and they can sue those developer/s (however, any users of the released code are protected since they are not the signatories/parties to the contract).