5 ms·

It is painful to watch the guys at itworld go into a spiel about APIs, only to realize the intern they asked to look this up thinks they were talking about web

by rwolf 15y ago

It is painful to watch the guys at itworld go into a spiel about APIs, only to realize the intern they asked to look this up thinks they were talking about web APIs like Twitter. Sheesh.

JamieEi 15y ago
I'm not an intern, and I don't understand why web vs. local makes a difference in this case. Can you explain?
- torkins 15y ago
  The article treats the 'open' and 'closed' status of APIs as if it somehow relates to being open-sourced or something. Really they are just referring to access control, which is both irrelevant to the issue at hand (whether an API is copyrightable) and also not at all relevant to the actual APIs being discussed (Java). Access rights for linked APIs mostly don't exist, and if they do its by way of authorizing the runtime the library is running within, not by using security tokens + authentication.
- rwolf 15y ago
  Sure. The API Oracle is talking about is the interface between various parts of Java--if you include this file, you can now call these methods. Conversely, Twitter provide network endpoints with which you can communicate with Twitter.com. These bear a certain abstract similarity (there are interfaces), but they have vastly different purposes. The author could make the argument that changes in the patentability of one meaning of API could impact the other meaning of API. Instead, while purporting to define the APIs under discussion. they talked about the Twitter sense instead. They then discuss Java's API in terms of "Open" vs. "Closed," which appears to refer to how easy it is to register for an API key with web APIs. When you are using an APIs of the library kind, the files you are interacting with are under your control--there is no registration, there are no API keys.
  - scott_s 15y ago
    The mechanism for how you access an API is not important. I see no meaningful difference between including a file and accessing classes and methods, and communicating with a Twitter server and using their RESTful interface. It's also a copyright claim, not a patent claim. The fundamental problem I see with the Twitter example is that Oracle is not, as far as I know, claiming that programs that use their Java API (classes and methods) are in copyright violation. They are claiming that implementing that API is a copyright violation. The only way to make an analogy with Twitter would be for someone to set up a similar service that implements the same API to communicate with it - that is, you could point your application to this new, Twitter-like service and everything would still work.
    - joe_the_user 15y ago
      The example might not be analogous to the initial situation but the possibilities for abuse would certainly extend to the example of a client implementing an api - if you copyright a server side api or a single computer api, you can copyright the client side of an api as well.
  - mattmanser 15y ago
    You've seriously never heard of registering a dll on a computer? It's the opposite way round but the concept's the same, the security's handled slightly differently though. An API is an API man. Your sheesh is causing a lot of programmers to look at you right now with a raised eyebrow. Start beating your retreat now.
_delirium 15y ago
In terms of scope I can agree that there is a bit of a difference, in that we're talking about whether you can copyright an entire library design versus a specific limited set of interconnection points. But even that would be problematic and contrary to existing practice; for example, Wine's reimplementation of the Win32 API would be a copyright violation if the Win32 API (and not just the code implementing it) is copyrightable. It contradicts the assumptions behind clean-room reverse engineering as well, which are that how-something-works documentation doesn't taint copyright of a new implementation that follows it as a spec.
- rwolf 15y ago
  I have no problem with the idea that being able to copyright library APIs might affect other kinds of APIs. See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2916969 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2916969 for a longer description of why I think the article is talking about how apple-y oranges are.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- ismarc 15y ago
  There's also the middle ground of the mysql api that has long been claimed as being under the gpl (but never tested in court as far as I know). There is a real danger here that could affect emulators, compatability layers, really any interoperability in place of proprietary systems and would be a real step backwards. But, we are not the audience of the article and web apis are easier to explain to non-developers.

by rwolf 15y ago

It is painful to watch the guys at itworld go into a spiel about APIs, only to realize the intern they asked to look this up thinks they were talking about web APIs like Twitter. Sheesh.

JamieEi 15y ago

I'm not an intern, and I don't understand why web vs. local makes a difference in this case. Can you explain?

torkins 15y ago
The article treats the 'open' and 'closed' status of APIs as if it somehow relates to being open-sourced or something. Really they are just referring to access control, which is both irrelevant to the issue at hand (whether an API is copyrightable) and also not at all relevant to the actual APIs being discussed (Java). Access rights for linked APIs mostly don't exist, and if they do its by way of authorizing the runtime the library is running within, not by using security tokens + authentication.
rwolf 15y ago
Sure. The API Oracle is talking about is the interface between various parts of Java--if you include this file, you can now call these methods. Conversely, Twitter provide network endpoints with which you can communicate with Twitter.com. These bear a certain abstract similarity (there are interfaces), but they have vastly different purposes. The author could make the argument that changes in the patentability of one meaning of API could impact the other meaning of API. Instead, while purporting to define the APIs under discussion. they talked about the Twitter sense instead. They then discuss Java's API in terms of "Open" vs. "Closed," which appears to refer to how easy it is to register for an API key with web APIs. When you are using an APIs of the library kind, the files you are interacting with are under your control--there is no registration, there are no API keys.
- scott_s 15y ago
  The mechanism for how you access an API is not important. I see no meaningful difference between including a file and accessing classes and methods, and communicating with a Twitter server and using their RESTful interface. It's also a copyright claim, not a patent claim. The fundamental problem I see with the Twitter example is that Oracle is not, as far as I know, claiming that programs that use their Java API (classes and methods) are in copyright violation. They are claiming that implementing that API is a copyright violation. The only way to make an analogy with Twitter would be for someone to set up a similar service that implements the same API to communicate with it - that is, you could point your application to this new, Twitter-like service and everything would still work.
  - joe_the_user 15y ago
    The example might not be analogous to the initial situation but the possibilities for abuse would certainly extend to the example of a client implementing an api - if you copyright a server side api or a single computer api, you can copyright the client side of an api as well.
- mattmanser 15y ago
  You've seriously never heard of registering a dll on a computer? It's the opposite way round but the concept's the same, the security's handled slightly differently though. An API is an API man. Your sheesh is causing a lot of programmers to look at you right now with a raised eyebrow. Start beating your retreat now.

_delirium 15y ago

In terms of scope I can agree that there is a bit of a difference, in that we're talking about whether you can copyright an entire library design versus a specific limited set of interconnection points. But even that would be problematic and contrary to existing practice; for example, Wine's reimplementation of the Win32 API would be a copyright violation if the Win32 API (and not just the code implementing it) is copyrightable. It contradicts the assumptions behind clean-room reverse engineering as well, which are that how-something-works documentation doesn't taint copyright of a new implementation that follows it as a spec.

rwolf 15y ago
I have no problem with the idea that being able to copyright library APIs might affect other kinds of APIs. See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2916969 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2916969 for a longer description of why I think the article is talking about how apple-y oranges are.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ismarc 15y ago
There's also the middle ground of the mysql api that has long been claimed as being under the gpl (but never tested in court as far as I know). There is a real danger here that could affect emulators, compatability layers, really any interoperability in place of proprietary systems and would be a real step backwards. But, we are not the audience of the article and web apis are easier to explain to non-developers.