5 ms·

I'm really torn on the topic of API copyrightability, and watching this nervously. On one hand, haven't we all worked with (or built) APIs which seem remarkabl

by mik3y 13y ago

I'm really torn on the topic of API copyrightability, and watching this nervously. On one hand, haven't we all worked with (or built) APIs which seem remarkable in their structure and simplicity? The best of the best seem like unambiguously creative works. On the other hand, I don't want to work in a world where simply conforming to an interface specification could be illegal. What a nightmare that would be.

ttflee 13y ago
Perhaps by simply using a different set of metaphors and synonyms, it could be circumvented. However, thesauruses are hard. See http://www.itworld.com/cloud-computing/379566/don-t-go-programming-if-you-don-t-have-good-thesaurus http://www.itworld.com/cloud-computing/379566/don-t-go-progr...
josephlord 13y ago
Fair Use and or competition law could better balance the power than a lack of copyright-ability. The other thing is that it gives a incentive to avoid platforms that have liberal API licenses. Specifically in the Java case Google could I think have used the API under the GPL but chose not to.
- patrickaljord 13y ago
  They chose not to because it would have made every single android app GPL too.
  - pron 13y ago
    I don't think so. OpenJDK's GPL has a "classpath exception", that does not require apps using the API to be GPL.
    - wmf 13y ago
      The real reason is probably that Android was developed before OpenJDK was released. That and carriers' irrational GPLphobia.
rayiner 13y ago
I don't see the big nightmare here. Copyrights aren't a "hidden landmine" issue like patents can be. It's not like you can accidentally copy an API, and even if you did, independent creation is a defense to copyright infringement. Being able to copyright APIs would just mean that everyone would be incentivized to switch to open-source APIs with clear licensing terms (BSD, GPL, etc). I don't see that as a bad thing.
- jmillikin 13y ago
  libeditline[1] is a BSD-licensed implementation of the GNU Readline[2] API. Do you think this should be considered copyright infringement? [1] http://wanderinghorse.net/computing/editline/ http://wanderinghorse.net/computing/editline/ [2] http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/php/chet/readline/rltop.html http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/php/chet/readline/rltop.html
- pron 13y ago
  I think it could certainly pose a problem for existing projects; for new ones - probably not so much. Some API authors will encourage compatible implementations (as they do now), and some will compete on their own.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  BSD wouldn't exist if APIs were copyrightable in the 1980s/90s.
MichaelGG 13y ago
That's the wrong way to view it. The proper way is: will copyrighting APIs help our society? Will software developers have more of an incentive to make better APIs (assuming those benefit the general public) because of copyright? Had there been strong copyrights, would Sun have made better date/time APIs? Would Microsoft not have ended up creating code that requires: String.Split(s, new char[] { ',' }, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries) To cut an unescaped CSV row? I can't see any positive difference in the world by copyrighting APIs.
- mik3y 13y ago
  You're right; to be clear, I also strongly don't believe that APIs should be copyrightable. But I'm nervous that there are at least a few ways to make the argument, to a layperson (like a judge or jury), and that Oracle might succeed eventually.
  - MichaelGG 13y ago
    That's because of the whole "intellectual property" concept. It moves the idea of copyright (and patents) from being an exception to free speech to being some sort of intrinsic fairness. Instead of looking at the tradeoffs with public interest, people start thinking things like "Well he did write it so he should control it. If he had made a chair instead of a poem, we wouldn't just steal the chair from him." In the process, the whole justification for IP is forgotten and we end up in bizarro world.
- josephlord 13y ago
  That is a political argument against copyrightability though not a legal one. There is also the possibility of fair use arguments which probably could be decided by the court. Do remember that if you independently come up with the same API for a function without copying that is not infringement (copyright is not patents).

by mik3y 13y ago

ttflee 13y ago

Perhaps by simply using a different set of metaphors and synonyms, it could be circumvented. However, thesauruses are hard. See http://www.itworld.com/cloud-computing/379566/don-t-go-programming-if-you-don-t-have-good-thesaurus http://www.itworld.com/cloud-computing/379566/don-t-go-progr...

josephlord 13y ago

Fair Use and or competition law could better balance the power than a lack of copyright-ability. The other thing is that it gives a incentive to avoid platforms that have liberal API licenses. Specifically in the Java case Google could I think have used the API under the GPL but chose not to.

patrickaljord 13y ago
They chose not to because it would have made every single android app GPL too.
- pron 13y ago
  I don't think so. OpenJDK's GPL has a "classpath exception", that does not require apps using the API to be GPL.
  - wmf 13y ago
    The real reason is probably that Android was developed before OpenJDK was released. That and carriers' irrational GPLphobia.

rayiner 13y ago

I don't see the big nightmare here. Copyrights aren't a "hidden landmine" issue like patents can be. It's not like you can accidentally copy an API, and even if you did, independent creation is a defense to copyright infringement. Being able to copyright APIs would just mean that everyone would be incentivized to switch to open-source APIs with clear licensing terms (BSD, GPL, etc). I don't see that as a bad thing.

jmillikin 13y ago
libeditline[1] is a BSD-licensed implementation of the GNU Readline[2] API. Do you think this should be considered copyright infringement? [1] http://wanderinghorse.net/computing/editline/ http://wanderinghorse.net/computing/editline/ [2] http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/php/chet/readline/rltop.html http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/php/chet/readline/rltop.html
pron 13y ago
I think it could certainly pose a problem for existing projects; for new ones - probably not so much. Some API authors will encourage compatible implementations (as they do now), and some will compete on their own.
nitrogen 13y ago
BSD wouldn't exist if APIs were copyrightable in the 1980s/90s.

MichaelGG 13y ago

That's the wrong way to view it. The proper way is: will copyrighting APIs help our society? Will software developers have more of an incentive to make better APIs (assuming those benefit the general public) because of copyright? Had there been strong copyrights, would Sun have made better date/time APIs? Would Microsoft not have ended up creating code that requires: String.Split(s, new char[] { ',' }, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries) To cut an unescaped CSV row? I can't see any positive difference in the world by copyrighting APIs.

mik3y 13y ago
You're right; to be clear, I also strongly don't believe that APIs should be copyrightable. But I'm nervous that there are at least a few ways to make the argument, to a layperson (like a judge or jury), and that Oracle might succeed eventually.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  That's because of the whole "intellectual property" concept. It moves the idea of copyright (and patents) from being an exception to free speech to being some sort of intrinsic fairness. Instead of looking at the tradeoffs with public interest, people start thinking things like "Well he did write it so he should control it. If he had made a chair instead of a poem, we wouldn't just steal the chair from him." In the process, the whole justification for IP is forgotten and we end up in bizarro world.
josephlord 13y ago
That is a political argument against copyrightability though not a legal one. There is also the possibility of fair use arguments which probably could be decided by the court. Do remember that if you independently come up with the same API for a function without copying that is not infringement (copyright is not patents).