undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgalaxyLogic5y ago0 comments

> accounting methods are not of themselves copyrightable creative works.

True. Neither are 'ways of calling library functions" copyrightable.

But in the case of Java API what was copied was the actual Java-code in which the APIs are expressed.

Because the APIs are "fed" to the compiler as Java source-code, it is clear what was copied was not just the "way library-functions are called".

What was copied was Java SOURCE-CODE which allows a Java compiler to ENFORCE and INTERPRET such calling conventions.

Even if the API was rewritten in another programming language it would be a copyright violation if large parts of the structure of the API meaning how the methods are organized into classes and interfaces and how they refer to each other, was copied. That would clearly be a work of art that deserves copyright protection, in my view.

0 pointsgalaxyLogic5y ago0 comments

> accounting methods are not of themselves copyrightable creative works.

True. Neither are 'ways of calling library functions" copyrightable.

But in the case of Java API what was copied was the actual Java-code in which the APIs are expressed.

Because the APIs are "fed" to the compiler as Java source-code, it is clear what was copied was not just the "way library-functions are called".

What was copied was Java SOURCE-CODE which allows a Java compiler to ENFORCE and INTERPRET such calling conventions.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

andrewjl5y ago· 2 in thread

From the Baker opinion:

"The conclusion to which we have come is, that blank account-books are not the subject of copyright; and that the mere copyright of Selden's book did not confer upon him the exclusive right to make and use account-books, ruled and arranged as designated by him and described and illustrated in said book." [1]

I believe based on this reasoning, copying APIs or copying code is a distinction without a difference, so long as it's in the context of calling library functions.

[1] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/101/99/

galaxyLogicOP5y ago

Are you saying code which calls library functions should not be copyrightable?

The Baker opinion can of course be used as argument pro-Google. But it is also just an "opinion". Each case must be decided on its own.

I believe there is a big difference between scale and structural complexity with the (inter-connected) Java API and some text-book examples of accounting layouts. At some point quantity becomes quality.

HotHotLava5y ago

I believe he is saying, and I would tend to agree, that it does not matter if Google literally copy/pasted the Java header files or if they had merely copied the API (ie. the same structure, sequence and organization) in a different language; for example by creating a Go package having exactly the same package structure and providing the same functions as the Java standard library.

In both cases, they would have "copied" the API and both seem to me to be exactly the same case as in Baker/Selden.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse