From TechDirt: Top Oracle Lawyer Attempting to Gaslight Entire Software Community: Insists APIs are Executable:
Last week, the Solicitor General of the White House weighed in on Google's request for the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit's ridiculously confused ruling in the Oracle/Google case concerning the copyrightability of APIs (and whether or not repurposing them is fair use). Not surprisingly, as the Solicitor General has been siding with Oracle all along, it suggests that the Supreme Court not hear the case. Of course, it does so by completely misrepresenting what's at stake in the case -- pretending that this is about whether or not software source code is copyright-eligible
[...] Except... that's not what this case is about. Even remotely. Literally no one denies that software source code is subject to copyright. The question is whether or not an Application Programming Interface -- an API -- is subject to copyright. As we've been saying from the beginning, the most frustrating thing about this entire case is that you have non-technically savvy lawyers and judges simply refusing to comprehend that an API is not software. It's not executable code. It's not "source code" for software. An API is a set of specifications for allowing the access of data, an application, or service. It's a "method of operation," which is simply not subject to copyright law. Indeed, back in 1996, the Supreme Court ruled in Lotus v. Borland that a user interface to a computer program is not subject to copyright under Section 102(b) as the interface is a "method of operation."
Whew! At least the .h files in C/C++ would never be considered an API and are thus safe.
Related Stories
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
More than a decade ago, Google re-implemented the Java programming language as part of its new Android mobile operating system. Oracle, the owner of Java, then sued Google for copyright infringement in 2010. Later this month, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this epic copyright case that will have huge implications for the entire software industry—and that could cost Google billions of dollars.
Google says it has done nothing wrong. Copyright law specifically excludes "systems" and "methods of operation" from copyright protection. Google argues that the aspects of Java it copied—function names, argument types, and so forth—fit squarely into these exceptions. Google also argues that copyright's fair use doctrine allows for this kind of copying.
The case is being closely watched by the software industry. Companies like Microsoft and IBM have warned that Oracle's stance could create chaos for the industry. They argue that making this kind of copying illegal would not only create legal headaches for a lot of software companies—it would be bad for customers, too.
Software companies copy software interfaces—known in industry jargon as application programming interfaces (APIs)—of their competitors' products all the time. This allows competing software products to be interoperable so that a customer can take software designed to work on one platform and re-use it on another. That means lower switching costs for customers. It also means lower barriers for entry for software startups, since it's easier to sell a new product if it's compatible with a software product that customers already know and trust.
If anyone should understand the importance of such copying, it's Oracle. After all, Oracle got its start in the 1970s selling a database product based on the then-new structured query language (SQL). SQL was invented by IBM. And Oracle doesn't seem to have gotten a license to use it.
If Oracle wins its legal battle, one ironic result will be to make the software industry less hospitable to future startups like Oracle. Incumbent software companies would have a greater ability to lock customers into their own proprietary standards. Startups wouldn't be allowed to do what Oracle did four decades ago: make its product compatible with an established competitor, then make that interoperability a selling point.
[...]Despite the lack of a licensing deal, Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz was enthusiastic when Google ultimately announced that Android would be based on Java.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Tuesday October 01 2019, @01:48PM (14 children)
Is the snarky commentary a reference to when SCO tried to pull the same B.S. with the Linux kernel?
.h files aren't exactly equivalent to an API, as they can potentially contain source code as well, but an API for C/C++ code is pretty much guaranteed to be represented entirely in a minimalist .h file.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday October 01 2019, @02:16PM
Aaaaand, you're splitting hairs that everyone past the bar - perhaps even the entire courtroom - except, perhaps, for one side's "expert witness" will neither know, nor care about when judging the next case.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @02:31PM
Pretty sure the commentary was intended as a joke .. for the reasons you cite.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday October 01 2019, @02:39PM
No, but that's a good point. I still watch SCO to this very day. Yes it is still "alive" in some sense of the word.
Hey, I had to come up with some kind of snarky commentary. :-)
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday October 01 2019, @02:56PM (8 children)
For some values of "minimalist".
It's surprising how fat this minimalism may be for template libraries
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday October 01 2019, @03:38PM (7 children)
Oh certainly - but template libraries are rarely part of an API.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday October 01 2019, @03:44PM (6 children)
The cp preference site called and they'd like a word with you. That's https://cppreference.com [cppreference.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday October 01 2019, @05:30PM (3 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday October 01 2019, @09:32PM (2 children)
You can still use C++ without those complications. Just ignore STL and all the other libs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday October 01 2019, @10:00PM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 3, Touché) by toddestan on Thursday October 03 2019, @12:38AM
That's fine for my own code and projects.
The problem is someone else's code where they decided to use an entirely different subset of C++ than what I like to use. Sometimes I need to doublecheck that I'm actually looking at C++ code.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @11:22PM (1 child)
Not sure if this is a joke that isn't funny, or you really don't know that it's CPP Reference. As in C++ -> C Plus Plus -> CPP
(Score: 1, Troll) by c0lo on Wednesday October 02 2019, @12:08AM
So you decided to play safe [xkcd.com], eh? How very commendable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @07:53PM (1 child)
> an API for C/C++ code is pretty much guaranteed to be represented entirely in a minimalist .h file.
Law warrants pedantry. The ABI for C/C++ code is likely to be represented entirely in a minimalist .h file and compiler controls. The API will very commonly have more complex documentation than is suitable for a .h file, in part because many users of the documentation will not be programmers. It's not like every single company uses doxygen.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:39PM
Pedantry it is then:
API (noun) - a set of functions and procedures allowing the creation of applications that access the features or data of an operating system, application, or other service.
The documentation is incredibly important in *using* the API, but the API itself is the functional interface accessible to your code.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 01 2019, @02:23PM (3 children)
At Fnord Inc, I've written down the byzantine business processes for submitting customer complaints. The documents are copyrighted by Fnord Inc. Is someone required to pay licensing fees to Fnord Inc, if they somehow manage to figure out how to submit customer complaints through trial and error?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Tuesday October 01 2019, @10:06PM (1 child)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday October 01 2019, @10:29PM
Legally, yes, so I modded you informative. But you left out the cost of defending yourself against trolls. So in practice, anyone who has a lawyer on retainer can win against anyone who doesn't, despite the case being blatantly bad.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday October 04 2019, @02:55PM
I feel vaguely uneasy about this post. What were you saying again?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 01 2019, @02:23PM (16 children)
And specific representations of rules are *explicitly* copyrightable, see the history for copyright cases for the rules of board games and card games. The decision has repeatedly been that you can freely rewrite those rules using your own language and expressions, but you can not just copy the rules verbatim.
So the stewards of the law have created a bloody minefield, and you can't blame the idiots who find contradictions and then push their case, no matter how stupid it seems. The law made it that way.
Personally, as someone who's only worked (as in $DAYJOB) on OSS projects for well over a decade, and who thinks the current implementation of all IP law should be dowsed in petrol and set on fire, I think that if the concept of copyright is to have any value, then if it applies to source code at all, it must also apply to APIs (but of course the copyright owners would be permitted to licence them separately). If we are to take the text at the end of the "not subject" link above as the immutable truth, then I think my conclusion is that software should not be copyrightable. The legal system has other IP protections, it's clear to me from the wording of the copyright one that it's not an appropriate match for things like software, it's so much more similar to the list of exclusions than it is to the list of inclusions.
Where's the petrol?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday October 01 2019, @03:06PM (1 child)
This is like saying putting out all the same street signs makes you drive the same way as another person.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 01 2019, @11:44PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @06:50PM (1 child)
So the .h file is copyrightable, the full file, comments, spacing, format and all, are copyrightable, but the information it conveys, they pertinent data - the method names, argument meanings, aren't on their own. Similar to a phone book, its collection of facts is not copyrightable - they're bare facts; but the presentation can be - the choice of page color, fonts, which entries are in bold face, as a whole can be copyrighted. You can publish the same name to number relationships without violating copyright but if you photocopy the whole book and publish that, you'd be violating the copyright.
Are you arguing that the presentation of an API is copyrightable while the API itself - the abstract idea behind the javadoc or header file - is not? Or are you saying the abstract concept should be copyrightable?
I'd only agree with the first, presentation of ideas can be copyrighted - but not abstract concepts.
(Please no API in a cave comments...)
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 01 2019, @11:40PM
False, hasn't been true for years.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @07:31PM (1 child)
API is not rules, it's facts. Facts are not copyrightable.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 01 2019, @11:39PM
And nope, collections of facts are copyrightable.
0/2 - must try harder.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Redundant) by sjames on Tuesday October 01 2019, @07:56PM (5 children)
Simple car analogy, Ford uses the same control layout as GM. Steering Wheel, accelerator and brake. That is the "API" of the car. For obvious reasons, it's against the public interest to force Ford to use a tiller bar and push buttons instead.
Include files rarely have real innovation in them. They tend to be merely descriptive of parameters to functions. If you read an include file and describe the API in emglish, then pass that to another developer and have them read the description and write a header file from it, it's going to look like the original +/- some whitespace.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 01 2019, @11:42PM (4 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:05AM (3 children)
I believe for copyright, the term creative is used. Frequently, courts have found mere recording of facts not to be subject to copyright. A header file is very much mere facts (the type and position of parameters and the type of a return value.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:50AM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Wednesday October 02 2019, @05:19PM (1 child)
It is worth noting that in the early '80s, it was not certain that copyright covered software at all. Ultimately, the courts decided it did. No doubt with reasoning involving angels dancing on pins and finely split frog's hairs.
However, in spite of CASE tools, code cannot really be auto-generated with any degree of success, headers can. Even done manually, it's not that uncommon to just copy the code to a .h and delete everything that doesn't look like a header.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 02 2019, @05:35PM
I would -1 you just for the trauma caused by you mentioning CASE tools, but in my happy place such abominations no longer exist, so I'll let you off.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:46PM
> In particular, an API is a very specific representation of those rules.
Not really. You can change the order the functions are listed in a vast number of ways - all of which are no longer the specific representation that was copyrighted.
In the U.S. copyright also explicitly doesn't apply to functional elements - so insofar as you *can't* change the representation while maintaining functionality, that representation is explicitly exempt from copyright.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:52PM (2 children)
As an OSS developer, how do you justify a need for copyright on an API?
You already have copyright on the code the API provides an interface for - nobody can use your code except as you have allowed in the license
Copyrighting the API as well just means that nobody else can do the hard work to create a drop-in replacement for your code. That's not protecting your hard work - it's providing you with lock-in on everyone who uses it. Give Microsoft copyright on their APIs, and utilities like WINE immediately become illegal.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 02 2019, @05:37PM (1 child)
You seem to be making assumptions not based on what I've actually said.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday October 02 2019, @06:15PM
Your words:
>I think that if the concept of copyright is to have any value, then if it applies to source code at all, it must also apply to APIs (but of course the copyright owners would be permitted to licence them separately).
AKA, there's no value whatsoever in me NOT being allowed to distribute your software freely, unless you can also block me from developing a drop-in replacement.
You also go on to say
>The legal system has other IP protections, it's clear to me from the wording of the copyright one that it's not an appropriate match for things like software,
Which other IP protections are more appropriate? Trademarks are mostly irrelevant, and patents explicitly aren't supposed to cover most of what software is (aka algorithms).
Copyright protects you primarily from literal copying - it makes it so that the first person to buy a copy of your software can't legally give copies to everyone else, and thus assures you a decent chance of making a return on your investment - just as it does with books, music, etc. What is wrong with that? And if the law exempts certain portions from copyright, that would otherwise allow you to exercise customer lock-in, I'd say that's a good thing. There's no value in "ideologically pure" laws - law is always a compromise between competing interests to facilitate the functioning of society.
Now, copyright has warped into something obscene, and I'd be strongly in favor of returning it to it's 14-year duration, but it is the only thing that keeps me from copying all of your software and code and doing whatever I want with it. Even open source software couldn't exist without it, aside from BSD-style "anything goes". Which might create an interesting environment, but why should programmers get less protection for their work than hack artists?
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Tuesday October 01 2019, @02:24PM (2 children)
It's only possible to gaslight [wikipedia.org] someone if there if some seed of doubt can be sown about the subject at hand.
There is no doubt in the "software community," except among the non-technical ignoranti that an API, as TFS rightly points out:
The only folks Oracle/US Government lawyers *might* be gaslighting are lawyers and other folks who are not part of the "software community."
As such, while TFA is interesting and somewhat informative, Mike Masnick and Techdirt should be taken out and heavily wedgied [wikipedia.org] for their ridiculous, wildly inaccurate clickbaity headline.
For shame!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Funny) by takyon on Tuesday October 01 2019, @02:28PM
Headline is fine, stop trying to gaslight. :^)
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Tuesday October 01 2019, @06:47PM
It is only possible to gaslight someone who is standing in a pool.
Pool of doubt.
If you give a man a match you keep him warm for the evening. If you gaslight him, you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by stormwyrm on Tuesday October 01 2019, @02:51PM
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by DannyB on Tuesday October 01 2019, @02:54PM (2 children)
Apache Harmony was an open source clean-room Java workalike implementation.
IBM was the primary contributor to Apache Harmony. (eg, this large project was done on their dime)
Sun licensed Java with "field of use" restrictions. This was to prevent smartphones from running real full blown Java, but only subsets of Java such as J2ME. You might remember J2ME from the days of flip phones. I did actually dabble (just for fun) with building J2ME apps for my, and my friends' flip phones. I build an asteroid game to be specific. It was cool to see your own code running on a phone. The entire compiled Java app was 21 K bytes.
Apache Harmony does not contain any Sun (later Oracle) code.
Sun made all of Java fully open source GPL + Classpath exception. (Classpath Exception: if you are only using Java to execute your own application, which adds significant value above and beyond just being Java, then your code is not subject to being under the GPL. So it's kind of like LGPL, but maybe better.)
Google was building Android. They chose Apache Harmony because it was open source, didn't have "field of use restrictions", and . . . it was Java.
Sun seemed to have no problem with this. So how exactly was Oracle harmed?
Oracle bought Sun with the idea of seeing a "sue google" sign pinned to Sun's back.
So just to please Oracle, in Android 8 (I think), Google switched from Apache Harmony to genuine open source GPL OpenJDK. Now Oracle should really be happy, no?
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday October 01 2019, @04:07PM (1 child)
During the takeover Oracle lawyers specifically interviewed James Gosling about this.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday October 01 2019, @04:18PM
Very soon after the acquisition, Gosling left Oracle. He didn't agree with something they are doing. Then came the lawsuit.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Tuesday October 01 2019, @02:56PM (8 children)
.h files contain more than just the API. They contain a representation of it in source code.
It would be possible to extract the API from the .h files by compiling them and extracting exposed symbols, but the .h files themselves can be copyrighted.
Machine extraction of APIs should be the preferred manner of extracting them, e.g.
struct{ int; int; int; } is an api parameter. field names are not part of the uncopyrightable machine interface... except in languages where this matters (e.g. javascript).
Nuance here is important, the law does not distinguish between .h and .cpp, only the uncopyrightable machine interface and copyrightable artistic manifestation.
The law contradicts itself though, as binary files should not be copyrightable according to "method of operation" since they are instructions and not an artistic work. Welcome to corrupt judiciary 101.
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday October 01 2019, @03:31PM (7 children)
True.
False, there's no such distinction without explicit exemptions. The machine interface is copyrightable itself.
* EU needed to carve exceptions specifically to make reverse engineering possible (in both interoperability and clean-room cloning senses).
* US is sorta backwaters in this regard, with the DMCA.
* In other jurisdictions, YMMV.
Details [austlii.edu.au]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1, Troll) by exaeta on Tuesday October 01 2019, @03:38PM (6 children)
In the United States the machine interface is not copyrightable. I don't know about the EU, but the subject is about a US copyright case.
Did Google go too far by using headers without rewriting them? Probably.
Would it be nice if fair use covered incidental use of headers where the objective is to get to the API? Yes. But if not, it's not the end of the world and nothing major changes really.
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday October 01 2019, @03:48PM (3 children)
If you are in the Oracle-Google dispute context, be aware that the whole squabble is in java (no .h/.cpp files involved)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday October 01 2019, @04:22PM (2 children)
As I point out above, Google didn't even use Oracle's Java. Google used Apache Harmony which was an open source clean room workalike.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 1, Troll) by exaeta on Wednesday October 02 2019, @11:19PM (1 child)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday October 03 2019, @01:54PM
Oracle, or indeed anyone, can sue no matter what. They don't need to have an actual case to cause you to have to defend it, even if you win.
They just have to be evil.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by c0lo on Tuesday October 01 2019, @09:29PM (1 child)
[Citation needed]
If there was so, Oracle's case would have been cut short from the very beginning,; there's a strong signal you're assertion is at least disputable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Friday October 04 2019, @03:34PM
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday October 01 2019, @03:57PM (3 children)
"If it please the court, an API is like a law on the books. Source code is how that law is followed or violated, and how the penalties are enforced in the real world. You wouldn't say that a description of that act is the same thing as, you know, the act, would you?"
(Score: 4, Informative) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday October 01 2019, @04:10PM (2 children)
Ironcially, there are lawmakers that copyright their laws and make others pay a fee to read them. You are, of course, still subject to laws even if you can't read them.
This is all bullshit, of course.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/court-tells-georgia-it-cant-charge-people-read-law [aclu.org]
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @05:30PM (1 child)
Interesting that you post an article that says exactly the opposite.
It says Georgia was trying to do that, the US government said, "no, the laws are written 'by the people' and thus cannot be kept from them."
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday October 01 2019, @10:36PM
Georgia *was* doing exactly what is claimed. Georgia was just more blatant and got overruled. In many places the specs for, say, the plumbing standards are owned by a corporation of plumbing contractors. They wrote them, and the law specified them, but you can't read them without the permission of the corporation.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @04:16PM (1 child)
https://web.archive.org/web/20040408124353/http://www.orafraud.org:80/Oracle/terminator.html#The%20Plaintiff [archive.org]
"Gaslighting" is a good word to use in connection with lawyers.
Insofar as the power of an authoritative figure to make suggestions which are in fact wrong borders upon hypnotism I would suggest that "hypnosis" might be another useful term.
This is why it is so important to question authority. You can't hypnotize someone who is asking questions.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday October 01 2019, @05:42PM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ilsa on Tuesday October 01 2019, @05:45PM
If Oracle is allowed to proceed with their nonsense, then we should be able to say that C and C++ function calls, structs, etc, deserve the same status.
Then all and sundry can sue Oracle into bankruptcy for an overwhelming number of breaches in copyright. If Oracle so desperately wants to live by that sword, then they should die by it too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @05:46PM
Write these judges a strongly-worded letter.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @07:45PM
Gaslighting's lying about events. This is lying about a definition. Not the same.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @10:40PM
expect the entire computer market to collapse in on itsself.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 01 2019, @11:59PM
I think the root of the problem is the lawyers don't understand the API is an idea.
Lawyers are VERY familiar with the concept that you can't copyright an idea, thus something like a blank form cannot be copyrighted. Sorry just can't do it. And to us software dev people its intuitively obvious that an API is like a blank form that interfaces with a system behind the scenes. But thats just one analogy you can interpret as applying to the system.
So how do you convince a lawyer that an API is an idea? I really donno. I mean, working it from the angles we know, it makes sense. But they're working from a different philosophical angle.
They do kinda have a point. .c file, .h file, whatever its all arbitrary what you stick in which file. Sure .c files are interpreted into code, but, dang it, people pre-process .h files all the time to handle cross compilation and other porting oddities. It takes a fair amount of a CS education to teach someone how to think in terms of good API designs. So maybe crappy API designs are copyright-able if they implement more than just ideas.
Lawyers are going to get all confused by static vs dynamic linkers, too.
In the long run I think if you want FOSS-style open and free as in freedom use of your API, you probably should license the API as such.