News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour by nightski on Thursday May 26, 2016 @07:48PM (#11782695)
One could argue whether an API is a creative work however. Are you copyrighting the syntax or the semantics? If it is the semantics, then you are essentially copyrighting a mathematical entity (a type declaration). Are we allowed to copyright mathematics at this point?

Forever unto me, the tuple (Int, Int) shall be mine.

Re:Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour by Silhouette on Thursday May 26, 2016 @08:32PM (#11782977)
One could argue whether an API is a creative work however.

True, though I suggest a better alternative is that some types of work -- in particular, those necessary for effective communication or for interoperability -- should be explicitly exempt from copyright protection, regardless of any creative element.

Copyright itself is an economic trade-off, sacrificing some freedom in the interests of promoting what is considered a greater good.

In the same spirit, I would argue that the ability of different parties to communicate and work together effectively is a greater good than anything copyright incentivizes and should therefore take precedence.

Curiously, the US legal system already recognises a similar principle in the way it treats typefaces. I submit that analogous treatment is appropriate for APIs, file formats, communications protocols, and the like.

Re:Jury in Oracle v. Google finds in Google's favour by nitrogen on Friday May 27, 2016 @02:51PM (#11788068)
Oracle claimed that their copyright covered "Sequence, Structure, and Organization."