|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 12:29 AM EDT |
I think you're certainly wrong about creativity vs originality.
In order for something to be able to be protected by copyright it must not only
be original, it must also be creative in nature.
For instance, lists of facts are not protected by copyright. Even if the fact
is original. "The sky is blue" can't be copyrighted. A particular
creative expression stating such may be.
Additionally, you go into detail about a verbose explanation -- You actually
spout IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS in your example of what would go in an API comment:
NOOOOOOO!!! Vehemently as possible, a resolute and resounding, NO!
Java does not do this.
SANE programmers do not do this.
The minimal facts, or related details ("@see foobar") that other
programmers need to know about when using the API are included in the Java doc
comments (the info that needs to be in a header file).
I believe my example illustrated this beyond argument: the DateFormat object is
named after something that formats dates. Its API comments list only facts about
what it does, which are not creative in nature.
The specific implementation details you listed about not re-using the variable
and some optimal caching stuff -- That sort of thing is NOT marked with doc
comments, and is NOT extracted from the implementation code, it is NOT in the
API!!!
(Have you EVER ACTUALLY READ THE JAVA SOURCE CODE?! If not, WTF are you even
talking about?)
Furthermore, you can distribute a C program library to other programmers to use.
I do this. The common convention is to put all the details that a
JavaDoc/Doxygen would normally extract into the .H files. This is because the
client does not need .C files to link against your library. Indeed, in closed
source libraries the client may NEVER see the .C implementation files; They get
the .H files, which contain the information needed to use the library. THAT'S
WHERE YOUR API DOCS GO!!! API is a programmers interface! They don't need or
want to see your .C!
The example from the ACTUAL API that I posted is not a creative work in my
opinion, and it is not original either. It contains only FACTS about the usage
of the particular element. It does not describe a fancy use case, or go into
details about how optimal it is.
Nowhere in the Java API does it delve into implementation details. Java
expressly prides itself on being implementation agnostic (platform agnostic).
--------- From the US Copyright Office: --------------
Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright
protection. These include among others:
• works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of
expression (for example, choreographic works that have
not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches
or performances that have not been written or recorded)
• titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols
or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation,
lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
• ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts,
principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a
description, explanation, or illustration
• works consisting entirely of information that is common
property and containing no original authorship (for
example: standard calendars, height and weight charts,
tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from
public documents or other common sources)
--------------
I put it to you that:
1. Java itself has not been fixed in a tangible form. It is an idea comprised
of the libraries, syntax, virtual machine, etc. I'm a seasoned Java programmer,
yet I can't point to anything and say "THIS! THIS RIGHT HERE IS WHAT JAVA
IS!"
2. The Java API is made up of ONLY: titles, names, short phrases, and slogans;
familiar symbols and designs that are mere listings of ingredients and contents
of the functions they describe.
3. The java API is made up of ONLY:
ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, and principles...
4. ..And it contains works consisting of information that is common property.
Without an explicit copyright statement on each contribution to Java, Oracle is
mistakenly assuming that someone at Sun got sloppy and forgot to apply their
terms.
This is hearsay and most likely incorrect. Without an explicit statement of
copyright attribution on the files, and with full knowledge that the public has
made a large number of contributions to Java sources, from which its API is
derived, they can not claim copyright over the API unless they have PROOF that
they actually WROTE IT!
Oracle can not, and will not prove they own the individual files that they are
suing Google over. The copyright office has stated that they could not produce
a copy of the CD registered with them, IT WAS BLANK. This was/is common
practice considered a mere formality, but it's WRONG, and results in
illegitimate copyright registrations (a valid registration is required prior to
suing)
This does not mean "Java" can not be trademarked... However, Google
is not infringing the Java mark -- Their VM is Davlik.
(Furthermore, I think you underestimate my knowledge, and overestimate your own)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
