[jariel]

"If it's an idea that does something functional, then it belongs in the domain of patent law: you register it, prove its unique, and then it's yours for 10 years."

APIs are nearly identical to code in terms of what they are, it's very reasonable to apply the same copyright rules.

[dragonwriter]

> APIs are nearly identical to code in terms of what they are, it's very reasonable to apply the same copyright rules.

I don't really agree, except to say that, sure, there's a good argument that code is purely functional (in the sense of “providing function”, not the programming paradigm), too. But copyrightability of code isn't the issue in this case.

[hannasanarion]

No they're not. API's don't have comments, they don't have expressiveness, and by their nature there is almost no choice on the part of the designer, they're just a list of names attached to functions (but not the functions themselves). There's only so many synonyms for "print".

Oracle is trying to claim that they own the idea of a toolbox with a tool called a "screwdriver", a tool called a "hammer", and a tool called "wire cutters", and nobody is allowed to make their own toolbox using the same list of names of tools.

[jariel]

" API's don't have comments, they don't have expressiveness, and by their nature there is almost no choice on the part of the designer, they're just a list of names attached to functions"

I don't know how anyone who's written code could even say this.

APIs have comments, they are expressive, there is considerable choice in design and they are a 'list of names' the same as the list of names attached to variables.

[hannasanarion]

APIs are not code. They are functional interfaces that code interacts with. The decision to have a function called `sqrt` and put it in a module called `math` is not creative, and it is definitely not artistic.

[jariel]

"APIs are not code" - most APIs are literally part of the code.

"The decision to have a function called `sqrt` and put it in a module called `math` is not creative, and it is definitely not artistic."

Yes, it absolutely is, in the sense that literally any arbitrary sentence or gibberish that I write is creative and copyrightable.

I can copyright: "Blahdy Blady Blady Blah" right now.

API design is as creative as any other part of the code.

[olliej]

You can’t copyright that - precisely because it is not a significant creative work.

The question is an API a significantly creative work, vs the implementation.

Historically - because the entire modern world depends on it - APIs were not considered copyrightable, largely because the creativity is embodied by the implementation.

You clearly disagree, I am curious if you believe being able to have competing software was detrimental - for example say MS claimed copyright over the XMLHttpRequest API? Or google over search engine query API, etc

[hannasanarion]

And colors are part of a painting. Do you believe that colors are copyrightable?

Letters are part of a novel, do you think that authors have a copyright to the letters that they use?