|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 10:58 AM EST |
The scary part of this argument is that it could
be used to claim
ownership over programs written in those languages that by
necessity implement
an interface declared in the API. An
interface is just the method declarations
with no
implementing
functionality.
I had thought about this but
an API is essentially a bunch
of words (alphanumeric characters) with
some
words being optional. Surely that means all
APIs are
copyrighted by the very first occurrence?
So the only difference between any
two APIs are the words
used (simple word replacement is still a copyright
violation) and the number of words used.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 06:35 PM EST |
The monopoly has numerous APIs in the wild, since in their heydey, they forced
everyone else to their way or else. If they can convince the courts that
copyrights govern APIs, and that they have a right to control downstream use of
those APIs, then their rapidly dying monopoly just might yield another few years
of cashflow.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|