|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 05:50 AM EDT |
I think it is even simpler than this. An API is nothing more than an instruction
manual. If you look at a library as a piece of equipment, it tells the
programmer what the equipment does and how to use it. For APIs, copyright stops
someone copying and distributing "The Java Class Libraries" book. What
Google have done is not copy the book, but produce a piece of equipment that
operates in such a way as to allow someone who bought a copy of the "The
Java Class Libraries" book to use it oblivious to the fact that it was not
manufactured by Sun. The only difference seems to be that some of the functions
that a programmer wouldn't need in Android (i.e. those not relevant outside the
smartphone environment) are missing or replaced with something more
appropriate.
Had Google created an alternate flavour of Java and called it "Java",
I would understand Oracle's concern. They didn't. They created something they
called "Android" and made it comfortably familiar to someone who
already knew Java to minimise the steep learning curve that would have been
required otherwise. I guess that is why all VCRs, DVD players, CD players and so
on use the same symbols for Play, Stop, Pause, and so on. Luckily, Oracle's
stance on APIs has not infected the real world, otherwise every DVD player
manufacturer would have to come up with their own symbol for "Play".
After all, you wouldn't want a Samsung owner to be able to read an LG manual and
figure out how to use the equipment.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|