3 ms·

Excerpt from [1]: "What is copyrightable is creative expression," said Julie Samuels, an attorney with the Electronic Freedom Foundation "What is not [copyrigh

by alok-g 15y ago

Excerpt from [1]: "What is copyrightable is creative expression," said Julie Samuels, an attorney with the Electronic Freedom Foundation "What is not [copyrightable] is functional information. The programming language is not. You can't copyright a language. It's what you make of that language." This seems to assume that creation of a (computer programming) language does not involve creative expression. (I understand that writing a compiler for this language certainly does.) This may have been right in possibly older times when languages were not explicitly designed; does not sound right anymore. Also, would you call sizeof(A) to be a part of the language (it is built into C/C++), or is it more like an API? [1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57429147-92/oracle-gets-a-chance-to-rewrite-software-law/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57429147-92/oracle-gets-a-c...

WildUtah 15y ago
No one is saying that designing a language is uncreative. The distinction is not between creative and non-creative. The question is between purely creative and functional. Functional things are usually not covered by copyright while creative things are. Things which are both need to be considered more carefully. A computer language would never be copyrightable anyway because it is not a fixed expression. It's a set of rules for expressing things and that is never covered. And APIs have never been covered because they're purely functional, regardless of the level of creativity involved.
- alok-g 15y ago
  >> A computer language would never be copyrightable anyway because it is not a fixed expression This helps! Thanks. As you stated yourself, APIs do seem to fall in the same category. I think the distinction of APIs from language is very complex as there are things which may blur the boundary between the two.

by alok-g 15y ago

WildUtah 15y ago

No one is saying that designing a language is uncreative. The distinction is not between creative and non-creative. The question is between purely creative and functional. Functional things are usually not covered by copyright while creative things are. Things which are both need to be considered more carefully. A computer language would never be copyrightable anyway because it is not a fixed expression. It's a set of rules for expressing things and that is never covered. And APIs have never been covered because they're purely functional, regardless of the level of creativity involved.

alok-g 15y ago
>> A computer language would never be copyrightable anyway because it is not a fixed expression This helps! Thanks. As you stated yourself, APIs do seem to fall in the same category. I think the distinction of APIs from language is very complex as there are things which may blur the boundary between the two.