5 ms·

I feel the judge will rule that APIs are not subject to copyright. There is no expression of creativity and it is fairly mechanical. I also think that if they a

by zmanji 14y ago

I feel the judge will rule that APIs are not subject to copyright. There is no expression of creativity and it is fairly mechanical. I also think that if they are subject to copyright lots of people are going to get sued.

Silhouette 14y ago
There is no expression of creativity and it is fairly mechanical. I disagree. Designing a good API is one of the most difficult skills to acquire in all of software development. If creating a good API were "fairly mechanical" then the world wouldn't be full of crappy ones, and we'd all rejoice permanently in the comforting glow that comes from writing code against an API written by someone who gets it. Despite this, I strongly believe that APIs should be excluded from copyright, for the same reason that I support the US exclusion of fonts. Some things are too important to general communication and creativity to allow any individual to have exclusive control over them, and they demonstrably can and will be created without needing that incentive to make them economically viable.
- fleitz 14y ago
  For a good API I'd agree with you that it's a difficult skill to learn. In the case of java I would say that "no expression of creativity and it is fairly mechanical" is a fairly apt description.
- lucian1900 14y ago
  I don't even think they should be excluded because they're important, but simply because they are required for interoperability, which can never be made illegal anyway.
- josnyder 14y ago
  API design requires much skill and foresight. As you said: Designing a good API is one of the most difficult skills to acquire in all of software development. However, the yardstick for copyrightability remains creativity (among other things). Some tangible work that was formed by the "sweat of one's brow" is not necessarily copyrightable, unless it was done creatively by the sweat of one's brow. Feist v. Rural [1] is the common case to cite here, where it was decided that telephone books were not creative, and thus not copyrightable, despite the effort that went into creating them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural
  - othermaciej 14y ago
    An API is not a compilation of facts, though. The specific names in an API and their relationships to each other seem like a creative work. There is no pre-existing fact that requires, for instance, that java.lang.String has several overloads of a lastIndexOf method that take the particular arguments that they do. Someone invented that. It may be that APIs are not copyrightable subject matter, or that there is some general defense based on fair use or interoperability, but I don't think it can be argued that creating an API is not a creative act.
    - cheald 14y ago
      I would argue that once an API is published and put into use, it becomes a list of facts about the interfaces in the program. You cannot change an API without undermining its entire purpose. In that sense, it is factual, in that the API class paths and signatures are effectively routing information between a client program and the API implementation. They describe the means by which you give data to a library and give data back. An API may be entirely as functional (though not necessarily as usable) if no creative thought or effort goes into it. You could have all your API methods be called api1(...), api2(...) and still have them function. Creativity and skill are a very useful component in making APIs, but I would argue that they are not requisite, as evidenced by the dearth of uncreative APIs created by unskilled programmers who have still managed to create libraries and services that we use on a daily basis.
      - jimmyvanhalen 14y ago
        According to Joshua Block, Google's Chief Java Architect. (slide 62 and 63) “I find it very rewarding to design great APIs and have people come to me years later and say, wow, you know, the collections framework changed my life.” "API design is a noble and rewarding craft" "API design is tough"
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
      >An API is not a compilation of facts, though. The specific names in an API and their relationships to each other seem like a creative work. The trouble is that it is a compilation of facts. "There is a function in Java called lastIndexOf in class java.lang.String that takes int as argument and returns int." That's a fact. The formal specification of that fact is "public int lastIndexOf(int)" -- that can't be a creative expression of the fact because it's the only way you can formally represent it to the compiler. The language mandates that expression; you can't alter it so there is no opportunity for creativity. Or to put it a different way, you might want to call it a creative endeavor to lay out a city and name all the streets. But if the person who named all the streets then comes around trying to claim a copyright over an independent cartographer's map of the city or the local phone book because it contains all of the street names, I wouldn't expect much sympathy. But I think the crux of it is this: >Someone invented that. Exactly. Software development contains both engineering and creative components. The functional components are patentable (in countries like the US that have software patents). The creative components are copyrightable. But the API is strictly functional -- if there is any protection for it, it's in the domain of patents. You can call inventions creative all you like, but you can't copyright function.
- amalag 14y ago
  I can agree with parts of it, but I still think Google should pay Oracle for licensing Java. They copied the entire API so they could leverage the entire Java ecosystem, I think that's quite unfair to Oracle. Oracle is not suing microsoft for implementing their own .NET VM.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    What does it mean to "leverage the entire Java ecosystem?"
    - amalag 14y ago
      Developer tools (eclipse), libraries, developers trained in Java, Java training. Just some of reasons they did not create their own VM like Microsoft.
      - nitrogen 14y ago
        Okay, but Oracle doesn't own the talents of everyone who knows Java, and has nothing to do with Eclipse. Do K&R collect massive royalties for all the operating systems written in C? Does Oxford demand licensing fees from speakers of English-derived dialects? Most of the words ("APIs") are the same.
      - jrockway 14y ago
        They did create their own VM -- Dalvik.
        davesims 14y ago
        Sort of -- but not in the same sense that the .NET CLR is MS's own VM, with its own unique bytecode (MSIL code). Dalvik compiles ("dexes") Java bytecode (most of which, except for Android-specific libraries, would run on any JVM) down to Dalvik 'bytecode'. It's honestly not that different from what the MSVM tried to do. The main difference, it seems to me, between the MS/Sun lawsuit over the MSVM, and the Google/Oracle suit, is that 1) Google did implement the entire JDK -- they simply added more proprietary libraries that can't run on a conventional JVM and 2) MS had a binding agreement with Sun. If Google wins (and for the record I'm on their side of this completely), my question is -- does that mean Microsoft didn't need that license agreement with Sun to begin with -- the one signed in 1996 that eventually caused the downfall of J++/MSVM, and the birth of .NET? That would be an interesting turn.
- wmf 14y ago
  ...exclusion of fonts. Some things are too important to general communication and creativity to allow any individual to have exclusive control over them I realize we're getting off-topic, but I'm curious how that follows. It is certainly important for people to have access to some typefaces, but if fonts were copyrightable there would still be some public-domain ones for people to use. Why is it important that people be able to use "premium" typefaces?
  - Silhouette 14y ago
    The problem is where you draw the line. All typefaces based on a western alphabet are ultimately going to be somewhat similar, because the shapes of the letters are what they are. The differences between many typefaces' designs are subtle at best, and frankly little more than typographic snobbery in some cases. Given that copyright applies not just to the original work but also to derived works, if you allow the basic design of a typeface to be protected then you are in danger of covering not just the design of the typeface but the entire medium of written communication. That said, "premium" typefaces in common styles (geometric sans, transitional serif, etc.) tend to be premium mostly because of all the detail work beyond the basic shape, such as hinting and kerning. Since that work is part of the implementation font file rather than the design, AIUI it can still be covered by copyright even in the US.
    - wmf 14y ago
      Ah. Even if, say, the original Times was copyrighted, it would have long expired by now. That's why I don't see any harm in having (reasonable-length) copyright for all typefaces of the last century or so.
jimmyvanhalen 14y ago
According to Joshua Block, Google's Chief Java Architect. (slide 62 and 63) “I find it very rewarding to design great APIs and have people come to me years later and say, wow, you know, the collections framework changed my life.” "API design is a noble and rewarding craft" "API design is tough" Also, according to Andy Rubin (slide 73) “Ha, wish them luck. Java.lang api’s are copyrighted. And Sun gets to say who they license the tck to, and forces you to take the ‘shared part’ which taints any clean room implementation.” According to Google employee Bob Lee (Slide 72) Q. Did you consult the Java docs when doing your work on the API implementations for Android? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And where did you obtain those Java docs? A. They’re posted for free on Sun’s website... Q. Did you observe any copyright notices on the specifications? A. Yes.
- hammersend 14y ago
  There are copyright notices in printed editions of the king James bible yet the words themselves are still in the public domain and you are free to use them however you want to.
  - brisance 14y ago
    The words are not in the "public domain"... you can't make a wholesale, verbatim copy of the King James Bible and call it the "hammersend Bible" because of copyright law. You may quote relevant passages from it though; this is well-established "fair use" doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#Copyright_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#...
    - hammersend 14y ago
      That's only valid in the UK. The Oracle vs Google trial is taking place in the United States where the KJV bible is most certainly in the public domain.
      - brisance 14y ago
        That's incorrect. The text is in the public domain but it is still covered by copyright. The copyright is not enforced outside the UK at this time. It is not pedantry; one cannot claim to have written the KJV version. A work that has passed into the public domain, or has become publicly available, still retains copyright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Public_domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Public_domain Here's a concrete example. Someone wrote a very successful book and it is protected by copyright laws. You may reproduce sections of it, but not the whole book. After X years have passed, and the book has passed into the public domain, you may reproduce it in full. You may not alter the work to credit yourself as the author. Similarly, the crux of the matter is: does the Google version of the Java API constitute a derivative work that is significantly different from the Sun-Oracle version? As stated above, the UK and US do not recognize common law of copyright. So despite the fact that the Sun-Oracle APIs are publicly available, it does not allow Google to claim that the code that belonged to Sun-Oracle is free from restrictions and thus can be copied.

by zmanji 14y ago

Silhouette 14y ago

There is no expression of creativity and it is fairly mechanical. I disagree. Designing a good API is one of the most difficult skills to acquire in all of software development. If creating a good API were "fairly mechanical" then the world wouldn't be full of crappy ones, and we'd all rejoice permanently in the comforting glow that comes from writing code against an API written by someone who gets it. Despite this, I strongly believe that APIs should be excluded from copyright, for the same reason that I support the US exclusion of fonts. Some things are too important to general communication and creativity to allow any individual to have exclusive control over them, and they demonstrably can and will be created without needing that incentive to make them economically viable.

fleitz 14y ago
For a good API I'd agree with you that it's a difficult skill to learn. In the case of java I would say that "no expression of creativity and it is fairly mechanical" is a fairly apt description.
lucian1900 14y ago
I don't even think they should be excluded because they're important, but simply because they are required for interoperability, which can never be made illegal anyway.
josnyder 14y ago
API design requires much skill and foresight. As you said: Designing a good API is one of the most difficult skills to acquire in all of software development. However, the yardstick for copyrightability remains creativity (among other things). Some tangible work that was formed by the "sweat of one's brow" is not necessarily copyrightable, unless it was done creatively by the sweat of one's brow. Feist v. Rural [1] is the common case to cite here, where it was decided that telephone books were not creative, and thus not copyrightable, despite the effort that went into creating them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural
- othermaciej 14y ago
  An API is not a compilation of facts, though. The specific names in an API and their relationships to each other seem like a creative work. There is no pre-existing fact that requires, for instance, that java.lang.String has several overloads of a lastIndexOf method that take the particular arguments that they do. Someone invented that. It may be that APIs are not copyrightable subject matter, or that there is some general defense based on fair use or interoperability, but I don't think it can be argued that creating an API is not a creative act.
  - cheald 14y ago
    I would argue that once an API is published and put into use, it becomes a list of facts about the interfaces in the program. You cannot change an API without undermining its entire purpose. In that sense, it is factual, in that the API class paths and signatures are effectively routing information between a client program and the API implementation. They describe the means by which you give data to a library and give data back. An API may be entirely as functional (though not necessarily as usable) if no creative thought or effort goes into it. You could have all your API methods be called api1(...), api2(...) and still have them function. Creativity and skill are a very useful component in making APIs, but I would argue that they are not requisite, as evidenced by the dearth of uncreative APIs created by unskilled programmers who have still managed to create libraries and services that we use on a daily basis.
    - jimmyvanhalen 14y ago
      According to Joshua Block, Google's Chief Java Architect. (slide 62 and 63) “I find it very rewarding to design great APIs and have people come to me years later and say, wow, you know, the collections framework changed my life.” "API design is a noble and rewarding craft" "API design is tough"
  - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
    >An API is not a compilation of facts, though. The specific names in an API and their relationships to each other seem like a creative work. The trouble is that it is a compilation of facts. "There is a function in Java called lastIndexOf in class java.lang.String that takes int as argument and returns int." That's a fact. The formal specification of that fact is "public int lastIndexOf(int)" -- that can't be a creative expression of the fact because it's the only way you can formally represent it to the compiler. The language mandates that expression; you can't alter it so there is no opportunity for creativity. Or to put it a different way, you might want to call it a creative endeavor to lay out a city and name all the streets. But if the person who named all the streets then comes around trying to claim a copyright over an independent cartographer's map of the city or the local phone book because it contains all of the street names, I wouldn't expect much sympathy. But I think the crux of it is this: >Someone invented that. Exactly. Software development contains both engineering and creative components. The functional components are patentable (in countries like the US that have software patents). The creative components are copyrightable. But the API is strictly functional -- if there is any protection for it, it's in the domain of patents. You can call inventions creative all you like, but you can't copyright function.
amalag 14y ago
I can agree with parts of it, but I still think Google should pay Oracle for licensing Java. They copied the entire API so they could leverage the entire Java ecosystem, I think that's quite unfair to Oracle. Oracle is not suing microsoft for implementing their own .NET VM.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  What does it mean to "leverage the entire Java ecosystem?"
  - amalag 14y ago
    Developer tools (eclipse), libraries, developers trained in Java, Java training. Just some of reasons they did not create their own VM like Microsoft.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      Okay, but Oracle doesn't own the talents of everyone who knows Java, and has nothing to do with Eclipse. Do K&R collect massive royalties for all the operating systems written in C? Does Oxford demand licensing fees from speakers of English-derived dialects? Most of the words ("APIs") are the same.
    - jrockway 14y ago
      They did create their own VM -- Dalvik.
      - davesims 14y ago
        Sort of -- but not in the same sense that the .NET CLR is MS's own VM, with its own unique bytecode (MSIL code). Dalvik compiles ("dexes") Java bytecode (most of which, except for Android-specific libraries, would run on any JVM) down to Dalvik 'bytecode'. It's honestly not that different from what the MSVM tried to do. The main difference, it seems to me, between the MS/Sun lawsuit over the MSVM, and the Google/Oracle suit, is that 1) Google did implement the entire JDK -- they simply added more proprietary libraries that can't run on a conventional JVM and 2) MS had a binding agreement with Sun. If Google wins (and for the record I'm on their side of this completely), my question is -- does that mean Microsoft didn't need that license agreement with Sun to begin with -- the one signed in 1996 that eventually caused the downfall of J++/MSVM, and the birth of .NET? That would be an interesting turn.
wmf 14y ago
...exclusion of fonts. Some things are too important to general communication and creativity to allow any individual to have exclusive control over them I realize we're getting off-topic, but I'm curious how that follows. It is certainly important for people to have access to some typefaces, but if fonts were copyrightable there would still be some public-domain ones for people to use. Why is it important that people be able to use "premium" typefaces?
- Silhouette 14y ago
  The problem is where you draw the line. All typefaces based on a western alphabet are ultimately going to be somewhat similar, because the shapes of the letters are what they are. The differences between many typefaces' designs are subtle at best, and frankly little more than typographic snobbery in some cases. Given that copyright applies not just to the original work but also to derived works, if you allow the basic design of a typeface to be protected then you are in danger of covering not just the design of the typeface but the entire medium of written communication. That said, "premium" typefaces in common styles (geometric sans, transitional serif, etc.) tend to be premium mostly because of all the detail work beyond the basic shape, such as hinting and kerning. Since that work is part of the implementation font file rather than the design, AIUI it can still be covered by copyright even in the US.
  - wmf 14y ago
    Ah. Even if, say, the original Times was copyrighted, it would have long expired by now. That's why I don't see any harm in having (reasonable-length) copyright for all typefaces of the last century or so.

jimmyvanhalen 14y ago

According to Joshua Block, Google's Chief Java Architect. (slide 62 and 63) “I find it very rewarding to design great APIs and have people come to me years later and say, wow, you know, the collections framework changed my life.” "API design is a noble and rewarding craft" "API design is tough" Also, according to Andy Rubin (slide 73) “Ha, wish them luck. Java.lang api’s are copyrighted. And Sun gets to say who they license the tck to, and forces you to take the ‘shared part’ which taints any clean room implementation.” According to Google employee Bob Lee (Slide 72) Q. Did you consult the Java docs when doing your work on the API implementations for Android? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And where did you obtain those Java docs? A. They’re posted for free on Sun’s website... Q. Did you observe any copyright notices on the specifications? A. Yes.

hammersend 14y ago
There are copyright notices in printed editions of the king James bible yet the words themselves are still in the public domain and you are free to use them however you want to.
- brisance 14y ago
  The words are not in the "public domain"... you can't make a wholesale, verbatim copy of the King James Bible and call it the "hammersend Bible" because of copyright law. You may quote relevant passages from it though; this is well-established "fair use" doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#Copyright_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#...
  - hammersend 14y ago
    That's only valid in the UK. The Oracle vs Google trial is taking place in the United States where the KJV bible is most certainly in the public domain.
    - brisance 14y ago
      That's incorrect. The text is in the public domain but it is still covered by copyright. The copyright is not enforced outside the UK at this time. It is not pedantry; one cannot claim to have written the KJV version. A work that has passed into the public domain, or has become publicly available, still retains copyright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Public_domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Public_domain Here's a concrete example. Someone wrote a very successful book and it is protected by copyright laws. You may reproduce sections of it, but not the whole book. After X years have passed, and the book has passed into the public domain, you may reproduce it in full. You may not alter the work to credit yourself as the author. Similarly, the crux of the matter is: does the Google version of the Java API constitute a derivative work that is significantly different from the Sun-Oracle version? As stated above, the UK and US do not recognize common law of copyright. So despite the fact that the Sun-Oracle APIs are publicly available, it does not allow Google to claim that the code that belonged to Sun-Oracle is free from restrictions and thus can be copied.