[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?