News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on U.S. Supreme Court Denies Google's Request to Appeal Oracle API Case. Parent comment

Re:U.S. Supreme Court Denies Google's Request to Appeal Orac... by AnimalMuppet on Monday June 29, 2015 @07:05PM (#9801763)
It would kind of defeat the point of publishing an API, wouldn't it? "Here's my API, but you can't use it without violating my copyright." Well, then, you might as well not have published it.

But the issue here is actually re-implementing the API, not calling it. The court could rule that an API could be copyrighted (and therefore freely called, but not freely re-implemented). The result would be that an API becomes a one-way interface. You couldn't have multiple competing implementations, you could only have one. That's still a big change for the software landscape...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Denies Google's Request to Appeal Orac... by wtallis on Monday June 29, 2015 @11:34PM (#9802774)
How would APIs involving callbacks work? Would they need special license acrobatics to authorize you to implement a callback of the necessary form as specified by the copyrighted API?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:U.S. Supreme Court Denies Google's Request to Appeal Orac... by spiralpolitik on Monday June 29, 2015 @08:59PM (#9802185)
You could have multiple competing implementations, they would for example either have to use the same header files provided by the copyright holder, implement a set of interfaces packaged in JAR file provided by the copyright holder (see JDBC as an example), or generate stubs from an IDL file provided by the copyright holder.
[ Parent | on HN ]