SoylentNews

DannyB [soylentnews.org] writes:

From TechDirt: Top Oracle Lawyer Attempting To Gaslight Entire Software Community: Insists APIs Are Executable [techdirt.com]

Last week, the Solicitor General of the White House weighed in on Google's request [techdirt.com] for the Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Circuit's ridiculously confused ruling [techdirt.com] 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. [supremecourt.gov] 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. [ . . . . ]

Whew! At least the .h files in C/C++ would never be considered an API and are thus safe.

Original Submission