On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 9:48 AM, thufir <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14-10-19 01:26 AM, lkcl . wrote: >> >> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 5:52 AM, thufir <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 14-10-17 08:52 AM, lkcl . wrote: >>> >>> the reverse-engineering was at several different levels: >>> >>> >>> I think your missing a key point, which is that you reverse-engineered, >>> which is exactly exempt: >> >> you are correct in that the reverse-engineering *itself* is irrelevant. >> >> however if it is an *API* that has been reverse-engineered and that >> API is considered to be *copyright material*. >> >> please ignore the fact that the material derived has been >> reverse-engineered in samba, wine and many other software libre >> applications. >> >> there is no link to reverse-engineering. >> >> it is the fact that the APIs which *have* been implemented [by a >> means and method that ****HAPPENS***** to be reverse-engineering] are, >> through this dangerous precedent that will be used in case-law to make >> ****ALL***** APIs copyrighted material, that is the most dangerous >> concern. >> >> is that clear where your confusion lies? >> >> is that clear enough now exactly what the issue is? >> >> l. > > > You've muddied the waters beyond all...something...at least for me. So I > quoted everything. > > Ok, make this concrete. We're talking OpenJDK. Let's ignore the GPL for > the moment, and just consider copyright. So, OpenJDK can be reverse > engineered, resulting in ReverseEngineeredJDK, which can be completely > proprietary. You're concerned that the SSO of ReverseEngineeredJDK can be > copyrighted?
i'm not in the slightest bit interested in Structure, Sequence and Organisation. the only thing i care about is that APIs remain uncopyrightable. > Why are you concerned about that? please do not make assumptions about what i am concerned about: if you would like to know my concerns please ask. > Finally, while not stated by anyone, I think it's widely assumed that a > trivial API, or SSO if you prefer, no i do not. and any confusion or attempt to call SSO "APIs" is flat-out wrong. APIs are *NOT* the same as a program's structure, sequence or organisation. please stop doing it. > can't be "protected" by copyright. The > fuzzy part is where to draw that line between an API that's not creative to > one that is. Which, I guess, is where the lawyers come in ;) exactly. and once one court case defines it as being for example "37" APIs, then case law will permit *ALL* APIs comprising a number of function calls at 37 or above to be copyrighted. once that happens then the nightmare scenario that i outlined in the first post becomes a reality. ok _enough_ hawat, i have to get on with other matters. l.
