|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 12:49 PM EDT |
| The fact is that an functionally identical API was developed
and used! It is
actually irrelevant how complex the process
actually was to obtain that API. To
(mis)use the quote, it
is
does not matter how many monkeys you used to
reproduce
Shakespeare, it will still be an copy of Shakespeare. So if
an API
is copyrighted then any copy of that API must have
the
appropriate permission
(license, public domain).
Of course, the begs the question of what is meant
by a
copyrighted API and who actually owns the copyright. The
general API SSO
is copied from at least Simula. Further
confusion occurs because the Judge has
said names are not
copyrighted. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bprice on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 01:17 PM EDT |
The BIOS is an API to manipulate the hardware.
NO! A BIOS is code "to manipulate the hardware." This code
has an API, but it is not, itself, an API. The API for a BIOS is its
Interface, the collection of forms (e. g., interrupts with
register-content semantics, or perhaps function calls) that an AP
(Application-of-the-BIOS Program) may use to invoke the functioning of the BIOS.
In this respect, a BIOS is no different from a library, or from anything else
with an API.
This sort of confusion is why the jury is taking so long. We
can't straighten out the jury, but we can and should avoid confusing ourselves
any further. ---
--Bill. NAL: question the answers, especially mine. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
