3 ms·
Those sound like two distinct things to me: - Copying an interface for the purpose of providing a compatible implementation (what Google allegedly did - althou
by Liquid_Fire 5y ago
Those 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.