| Sure. Is the source code the software or the compiled binary? What is copyrightable? One or both? Is an API the source code, the compiled binary, or the running process of the software? What is copyrightable? Computer software is considered copyrightable. Source code and binaries are both copyrightable. Even if you didn't copy the source code, if your software is "substantially similar" to another copyrighted software, you could violate their copyrights. The argument is whether or not an API is a substantial part of some computer software. In this case, it's the Java libraries. Since the Java libraries only value is the Java APIs, I believe it would be hard to argue that copying the Java APIs did not violate Sun's (and now Oracle's) copyright. That's why I think that it's very frightening that Google has to rely on this argument to defend itself rather than, say, the statue of limitations on copyright or, better, an explicit license grant from Sun. |
The source code is the creative work, and the compiled binary is a mechanical transformation of the work, and thus both are covered by the same copyright. I don't see how this is mysterious.
> Is an API the source code, the compiled binary, or the running process of the software?
It is none of those. The I in API stands for interface — that is, it's an abstract description of the things a library provides and how you interact with them. The source code, the compiled binary and the running process are concrete implementations, not abstract interfaces.
> Since the Java libraries only value is the Java APIs
What on earth? Are you really saying the only value of the Java standard library is the names and type signatures of the packages and methods, and not the actual functionality they provide? The library could actually not implement any of the methods and it would be just as valuable?
I have to assume you are just very confused about what the word "API" means.