On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Kern Sibbald <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14-10-22 06:59 AM, lkcl . wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Kern Sibbald <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> It is my belief that the LGPL was designed to allow linking with any >>> other >>> code without that code being LGPL. So concerning your statement that it >>> would be the end of LGPL, I don't agree. >> >> kern may i respectfully remind you that top-posting in a complex >> discussion places a burden on others to work out what you are replying >> to: it is against standard netiquette rules, please don't do it. > > > Yes, of course. I assume you prefer that I answer in-line, if not please > let me know.
for what has fast-become a complex discussion, where there is often a lot of text which top-posting typically leaves in... yes please :) > When I make a small on paragraph request I usually top post > because it seems simpler to me, but I'll gladly respect the usage of this > list. it's more the type of discussion [that this is]: simple conversations of one sentence A followed by one question Q are ok :) this is _anything_ but that :) >> https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/who-ever-thought-apis-were-copyrightable-anyway > > > OK, I read the article (one page -- seems a bit short) and it corresponds to > my concept of what an API is, because I am a programmer. great. there are people on this list who do not (and are not) and it is good to make things clear. >> and the definition of functions (name, argument types) have NEVER >> been considered copyright, so nobody has ever been *ABLE* to include >> licensing THAT WHICH CANNOT BE COPYRIGHTED. > > > OK, I understand the above, and didn't mean to imply I believe something > different. more that it is necessary to check, if you know what i mean. >> >> >> ... now some idiots want to have the definition of functions (the >> actual name, the actual argument types) NOT REPEAT NOT REPEAT NOT I >> REPEAT AGAIN AND COUNTLESS TIMES AGAIN ***NOT*** the IMPLEMENTATION >> but the ***CONCEPT*** of what goes into an API... these idiots at >> oracle want the definitions of functions to become copyrighted. > > > Yes, copyrighting APIs would make interoperability impossible or almost > impossible. I agree that most people believe that APIs are not > copyrightable and we in open source have always assumed this is the case. no not just in the software libre world: _everyone_ assumes it is the case. otherwise no proprietary software company could possibly even have been "permitted" to quotes get away quotes with creating interoperable software. DOS for example. the INT33 vectors constitute an API. the teams that clean-room implemented DOS would have been sued for violating the copyright of the INT33 APIs. it really is _everyone_ that assumes APIs are simply not covered by copyright. dr stallman (i sent a copy of his message to this list, i think) even said that it would have been impossible for GNU to _exist_ if the APIs behind UNIX had been considered Copyrightable. to create an interoperable equivalent, they _had_ to copy - verbatim - the function names, arguments, semantics, error codes and so on. > However, certain APIs are copyrighted stop, stopstopstop.... _how_? no country has laws and no engineer (proprietary or otherwise) considers and no license exists whereby the words "API" and "copyright" are connected. if you believe otherwise - if you have seen *concrete* examples - laws in any countries, licenses where APIs are *explicitly* named as being copyrighted material - please do say so, it could be important. >and they are generally protected by not disclosing the API - "protected" through obscurity, yes: copyrighted *NO*. to my understanding, there is *NO* case law in which the copyrightABILITY of APIs has been established. this is what this very very dangerous case is all about. oracle attempting the incredibly stupid landmark step, establishing the precedent of making APIs copyrightable. > - such as Oracle's DB backup interface. Bacula > Systems (open core) was able to write an Oracle DB plugin only because we > signed an NDA. whoops :) > I believe that most APIs are a unique creative work, but at the same time, I > believe that they should not be copyrightable otherwise, it permits > monopolies, and would effectively lock out open source. software libre would indeed be locked out, as would proprietary software companies as well. regarding monopolies: it's actually much worse than i initially thought, because companies and software libre projects would be forced into creating non-interoperable competing alternative APIs. what that would mean is that the incumbents would automatically be granted cartel status even if they *didn't want it*. > Some writers were complaining on this list that copyrighting APIs would have > a big effect on the GPL, ... where the creator of the GPL (Dr Stallman) has pointed out that the entire GNU project would not even exist if they had been unable to copy - verbatim - the APIs of the UNIX operating system that they wished to replace. no, the FSF is *most definitely* very very strongly *against* copyrighting of APIs, because it is simply too dangerous, for exactly the reasons you outline. > and I was asking about that, because I think the > effect is not specifically on the GPL but on *any* free/open code that could > use the interface. it's much more than that: it's any software, proprietary or otherwise. > Bottom line: as an open source author and advocate, I would not like to see > published APIs copyrightable. my view is that it needs to go much further than that, and include *unpublished* ones as well. just because someone wants to keep an API "secret" is not a good enough reason to prevent and prohibit engineers from creating interoperable components. l.
