IANAL - I simply speak from what I understand of Copyright Law, my
understanding of the concept of communication, and my logical conclusions on the
impact of applying copyright to a language (or even just words in a language)
would be.
Let’s start with the acronym:
API = Application Programming
Interface
To expand a little, the AP part can be dropped as has been
previously suggested:
I = Interface
Why drop the AP part? Because it
helps refine the definition of the third word. It doesn't alter the meaning of
that third word. So that leads us to the question:
What, exactly, is an
interface?
An interface - at
it's very heart - is simply a means to communicate:
2a: the place at which
independent and often unrelated systems meet and act on or communicate with each
other
2b: the means by which interaction or communication is
achieved
Here's an interesting question to ponder:
What is the earliest
interface that a given human experiences in her/his entire life?
Did you
ever realize - even as an adult - that you were interfacing with your parents
when you were a newborn?
Every human on the planet who communicates with
their parents in some fashion no matter how obscure - is involved in using
interfaces.
When the baby cries for the first time, the parent is lost.
What does the crying mean? Change the diaper? Feed the child? Too overtired
and needs a sleep?
So the very first interface is:
Baby
cries!
Parent initiates a process that checks the various things that
could cause the baby to cry.
Eventually both the baby and parent adapt.
And instead of having a single interface, they now have a couple.
The baby
cries in certain way A
Parent knows it's time to change the
diaper
The baby cries in certain way B
Parent knows it's time
to feed the child
So the interfaces have become more specialized. Earlier,
a single interface for the parent to initiate a check on all possibilities.
Now, multiple interfaces are in play to initiate specific processes.
This
continues throughout life - and it never stops when a requirement to communicate
appears. Later on, when the baby is no longer a baby the parent initiates an
allowance. So a new interface "is born". Come allowance time, the child asks
if they may have their allowance thereby initiating the process for the parent
to consider recent behavior and decide whether or not to hand out
payment.
Let's call that the HI = Human Interface. That interface has
many, many mechanisms from hand language to body language, to speech with no
real limitation on how one can communicate if one really wants to: Stephen
Hawking!
Ahh... H. Now we've added a refinement so someone clearly
understand when we are talking about the concept of humans
communicating.
So... what happens when we apply that to the very specific
method of speaking. How do we communicate through speech? Well... we use
words. But what does a word mean? As has been previously pointed out, a "dog"
is meaningless unless we apply that word to some kind of definition. Each and
every word we use comes with a definition. True... we could just make up our
own words:
Pblible phloop blangz plud!
But then... unless we take the
time to explain what that means, no one will understand us. I really hope it
doesn't mean anything, I tried to "invent" words that really don't exist, but
with 6,500+ spoken languages today it really is possible those words have
meaning to someone :)
And that would be the point: if you wish to
communicate, you must communicate in a language that the listener can
understand. Using words in a context that makes sense.
To say "Dog
purple the a cabinet babybuggy dinner" means absolutely nothing to English
speakers even though they are all English words.
So... what would happen
if we copyrighted Dog or Purple and no longer allowed that as a non-cost method
to communicate? When someone wished to express the concept of that animal we
collectively call "Dog", they would either face copyright infringement for using
the word (up to $150,000 in damages), face paying a fee for each use or
negotiate a license for greater uses, or come up with their own word to
represent "Dog".
The same holds for the color Purple: face copyright
infringement, pay a license fee, develop a new word.
To develop new words
would be identical to developing their own language. A new language that people
would have to learn if they wished to communicate: Chien.
So... just how
far would being able to claim a copyright on the "interface of the word dog"
extend? No one could use the word in that concept anywhere. Not in a movie,
not in a book, magazine, or article. Not even in just speach communication with
another. Because in all instances, you are interfacing with a listener to
communicate a concept.
I can think of no faster way to drive people away
from a language then to place a Legal requirement on that language in the form
of a tax on any use of the words in that language. To tax any form of
communication - to make criminals out of anyone simply because they wanted to
communicate.
Now... let's explore how the above concepts of communication
- to interface - applies to computers:
Application Programming
Interface
If I wanted a friend to give me the latest date that he held a
party, I could "interface" by asking:
When was the last time you had a
party?
In a more formal method - perhaps a logic instruction course - I
could say:
Give me the most recent date you had a party!
or
Give me
the greatest date from the parties you held!
or
Give me the max date
from the parties you held!
Slightly different ways to express the same
concept. Ask the same question to get the same result.
With that in
mind, does it really surprise anyone that we have developed languages to
communicate with computers that reflect our very own word
definitions:
answer = max(party_date)
There are a few synonyms for the
word max:
best, biggest, greatest, largest, most, latest, outside, supreme,
top, ultimate
However, depending on what you intend to mean when you say
max, given a situation, the choices suddenly drop:
the latest
date
the largest apple
the greatest group of people (in size
or in numbers?)
So... functionally, if you wish to communicate with other
humans on what your computer stuff does.... you are constrained to words the
listeners will understand. Words that make sense in the context of the behavior
you intend to occur.
The effect of allowing copyright on an API is
equivalent to allowing a copyright on a word.
This raises a very
important question:
Should anyone be granted a copyright on the plain
meaning of a human language word?
Which proceeds to:
Should copyright
on such words even be allowed?
If Oracle really, truly does want to be able
to copyright an API then logically I cannot author my own programs using the
language without infringing their copyrights which puts me at risk of the
copyright damages penalty of potentially $150,000 per infringement.
I
see no faster way for Oracle to drive software developers away from their
products. It's simply not worth attempting to legally communicate in a language
that someone 'owns'.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
