|
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, May 31 2013 @ 06:51 AM EDT |
The first few sentences are correct, and it is an error to say that BSD code is
not copyrighted. But then the final few sentences degenerate into pure trolling.
There is no suggestion that you can drop BSD code directly into any OS.
You always have to do some coding to make it fit, every programmer everywhere
knows that, and there is no suggestion that it is not so in the article. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 31 2013 @ 10:54 AM EDT |
Your program is not an API. Well, a lot of my
programs are in Scheme and in fact, every function I add is an api element
focused on the problem domain. Some are so general in use, such as a function
that takes a function (Connection -> a), opens a connection to a database,
performs the function, and closes the connection, gets put into a module that I
"require" into other modules that define more specific behaviors.I need
a license to photocopy that origami book. I do not need a license to use the
instructions in creating works. I do not need a license if I figure out
different
folds to a same result and write my instructional book. No, the
alternative to extending copyright to re-implementations of abstracted package,
class, and function signatures is not patenting. Who could argue with a
straight
face that language development, technological advancement, and the
nation's
wealth has been hampered because copyrights on binaries and physical
documentation are the tragically woeful extent of author/publisher rights?
Frankly, waving patents as a boogeyman is a reach and undermines your
argument.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Error Apology - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 31 2013 @ 10:56 AM EDT
- Error Apology - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 31 2013 @ 11:03 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, May 31 2013 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
Copyright only protects creative expression fixed in a medium
Since API's are abstract ideas defining the functionality of the software
implementing the API definitions, they are not protected by copyright.
If the API is published as a text document (expression fixed in a medium) in a
form that a software writer can use, then nothing in it is protected by
copyright unless it is creative expression and after the following list has been
excluded (by 17 USC ยง 102. and case law)
Names, short phrases, functional descriptions, any idea, procedure, process,
system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the
form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such
work.
APIs (ABIs and all 'programming interfaces') are ephemeral, abstract ideas that
do not appear as computer instructions. Only the implementation code actually
exists.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 31 2013 @ 03:33 PM EDT |
The "source code" to BSD sockets is copyrighted, as is all source
code. The API itself is not.
So if I copied the BSD code directly into my code, then used in it a manner
incompatible with the BSD license, I would be infringing, API or no. But if I
write my own code, following the specified API (as Google did), and use it per
the license and the specification, no infringement.
(My first thought was BSD is probably not the best example because their license
is so broad, but OTOH, it is a good example because despite the very broad
license, there can still be copyright infringment. You just have to know where
the copyright stops and the API begins.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 02 2013 @ 11:27 AM EDT |
....and the namespace and object/class member hierarchy
structure.
Names and short texts which are used in header files for
reference are not copyrightable, and nor are object or
member names made up of ordered dot separated parts, or
comments which serve as references.
The analogy to this in the wider world is the fact that the
name "Coca Cola" is not copyrightable even though it is a
trademark. Therefore I can safely write an article which
says "Coca Cola rots your teeth - don't drink it" without
having to get express permission from the Coca Cola company
to use the word "Coca Cola" in the sentence.
Another example is that I can write safely use the
structured name "John Henry Smith" in the same way that I
can use the text java.io.System.out.println("Don't sue me"),
without being sued for simply using the name to refer to the
person or object.
Claiming copyright on those API references is just as absurd
as the wider world examples.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|