|
|
|
| Authored by: xtifr on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:36 PM EDT |
OOP languages have syntactic mechanisms to introduce new
terminology.
That's true of almost any modern language, for a very
broad definition of modern (the only exceptions I can think of are some early
languages that didn't have named subroutines, and the last surviving member of
that class that I know of is the IBM PC ROM BASIC).
Forth is famous for
being so extensible that it cannot meaningfully be said to have syntax, and it's
not even close to being OO. (By default, it uses spaces to separate tokens, but
that's just a default, and that's as close as it comes to having actual syntax.)
Functional languages like Haskell also have just as many mechanisms for
extension as any OO language.
At any rate, you are onto a
key theme in Google's defense.
I hope so! They seem to have been
beating around the bush with vague, lengthy, and potentially confusing
descriptions of what an API is. I'd really love for them to come out and say
that an API is simply vocabulary added to a language, and is no more
copyrightable than any other type of computer language. They do still have
time, of course, but I would have liked to have seen it in their pre-trial
motions.
---
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for it makes
them soggy and hard to light. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 07:21 PM EDT |
The problem with this analogy is that it targets a small issue (APIs vs.
language) and, as such, it confuses the forest with the trees. The argument is
that Google 'stole' Java by reimplementing it in Android. Very sneaky move.
AFIK it is not clear whether a computer language can be copyrighted. Why not?
The notion that a language itself can by copyrighted is reasonable, especially
Java which was a creative novelty when it first appeared (it was definitely a
creative "expression" by Sun).
The issue is that Sun execs were confused between the lure of open source and
the need for revenues and did not seem to have defended their property as
copyrighted -- something Sun Shareholders did not understand or accept/see the
comments on the bottom of the famous Jonathan Schwarz blog. Certainly this is
one reason the company want bankrupt.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
