On 14-10-17 08:52 AM, lkcl . wrote:
one other thing: software libre developers would also be burdened with
the additional task of issuing a LICENSE to use their API! by
default, copyright law DEMANDS that you, the copyright holder, issue a
license. if you do not issue a license then the default is that
nobody may use the copyrighted work*without permission*. you KNOW
this.
Pardon, I misread this paragraph in my previous reply.
I would disagree with you about copyright and API burden. To start with:
"Although Oracle owns the copyright on Java SE and the API packages, it
offers three different licenses to those who want to make use of them.
The first is the General Public License..."
So, the GPL is one option. But your concern is the burden of issuing a
license for an API. I don't think so, because the appeals court writes:
'If we were to accept the district court’s suggestion that a computer
program is uncopyrightable simply because it “carr[ies] out pre-assigned
functions,” no computer program is protectable. That result contradicts
Congress’s express intent to provide copyright protection to computer
programs..."
and the fact that Sun never explicitly put a copyright on the API
itself. As a practical matter, how would that even be accomplished?
I think this concern misses the point of the definition to SSO:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organization
It's about the, somewhat nebulous, totality of the API...?
In short, no, I disagree. But, maybe.
-Thufir
