|
Authored by: lwoggardner on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 06:43 AM EDT |
But in order for copyright to apply doesn't it have to be
fixed somewhere rather than the abstract concept of the API.
In which case the answer to PJ's question is "Yes" the API
exists as Java (or C for those parts implemented natively)
source code, from which other forms, bytecode via javac or
html documentation via javadoc, are derived (or derivable)
So yes, if the API is copyrightable then Oracle have
released it under GPL via OpenJDK.
But this still leaves a problem because the GPL is
specifically targeted at source code that is turned into
binary code. It is not clear (to me) how the so called
"viral" aspects of the GPL would apply to such a nebulous
concept as an API. Without further clarification what kinds
of derivative APIs would be considered "linked"
This is similar to the reason that the Classpath exception
exists, namely that the GPL describes "linking" in a way
that makes sense in a C/C++ type world, but gets messy in
Java due to things like inheritance. The CPE makes it clear
what is considered linking for a java binary and what is
not.
All in all the world will be a much simpler place if the
good Judge rules that API's are not copyrightable.
We've know that the individual names are not copyrightable.
but is the order or parameters to a method copyrightable?,
is a collection of methods?, a collection of methods
arranged as a class?, an inheritance hierarchy of classes?,
a collection of classes in the same namespace (package)?.
Where do you draw the line?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|