3 ms·
It depends on whether you think copying a list of constants from what is essentially an “API” is copyright infringement. It’s a contentious topic, but last I h
by hnfong 5y ago
It depends on whether you think copying a list of constants from what is essentially an “API” is copyright infringement.
It’s a contentious topic, but last I heard people here tend to believe it isn’t (as long as it’s Google copying Oracle’s stuff)
- Liquid_Fire 5y agoThose sound like two distinct things to me: - Copying an interface for the purpose of providing a compatible implementation (what Google allegedly did - although of course part of the debate is whether they also copied any of the implementation) - Copying parts of the implementation, not for the purpose of compatibility (what faker.js did - in this case, copying constants)
- hnfong 5y agoIIRC US copyright law gives very little protection to compilation of non-copyrightable data (look up copyright status of telephone directories). The argument is that it's just public domain factual information bundled together. The faker libraries are all that -- compilations of mostly non-copyrightable facts. I'm not saying faker.js did no wrong, just saying if hypothetically a purported copyright owner sued him, they would have a really hard time proving substantial infringement happened given the available precedents.