[colug-432] copyright ...an API?

[Chris Embree]

Yeah, but you believe in "intellectual property" as tho it exists. ;)

We've debated before and I'll just reiterate; IP is a faux legal construct
that pretends that a thought process is equal to "tangible property" which
leads to a debate about legal precedent.  Just because a few, ignorant
and/or paid off,  and/or misguided and/or malicious judges decided
something once, does not constitute proof, fact, or guided decisions
regarding cases like this.  I don't care that all the layers agreed to this
as a concept; it's malformed. $0.02

I only had to explain in as much detail because I know you. ;)

BTW, hope you're doing well.

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:08 PM, William Yang <wyang at gcfn.net> wrote:

> #include <std_disclaimer_i_am_not_a_lawyer.h>
>
> I suspect it stems from copyright including the right to control whether
> someone's allowed to create a derivative work.
>
> Using the API is being construed as derivative, as it relies
> specifically on the creative expression of the API.  The layout and
> design of the API is also being construed as creative and expressive, in
> that there are many other ways to say the same essential thing.
>
> On 2016-05-10 18:12, Rick Hornsby wrote:
> > I'm a little bit confused by the $9B Oracle-Google fight[1].  I don't
> understand how using an API is a copyright violation, which makes me think
> I'm missing some salient point here.  I'm not a fan of Oracle, but Google
> is big enough to handle themselves so this isn't an attempt to construct a
> defense of any bad behavior on their part.
> >
> > If you build a java library, a ruby gem, or a perl module and license it
> for open use as Sun (Oracle) has done with Java (correct me if I'm wrong),
> how can you then turn around and sue me for using the API exposed by your
> library/gem/module?  If the Java code itself was copyrighted, say like a
> DLL from Microsoft might be, and I blatantly rip that off from you, copy
> the code, and include that copied library code in my own commercial product
> in clear violation of a *copy*right -- that's different, no?
> >
> > To put it another way, if I make a hugely popular Windows application
> (the horror...) that makes me a bajillion dollars and it uses the APIs
> exposed by Windows, how does Microsoft sue me for a copyright violation?
> >
> > [1]
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/oracles-lawyer-grills-googles-eric-schmidt-on-the-nature-of-apis/
> > _______________________________________________
> > colug-432 mailing list
> > colug-432 at colug.net
> > http://lists.colug.net/mailman/listinfo/colug-432
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> colug-432 mailing list
> colug-432 at colug.net
> http://lists.colug.net/mailman/listinfo/colug-432
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.colug.net/pipermail/colug-432/attachments/20160512/b8386388/attachment.html