|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 05:58 PM EDT |
Are you saying ABI's are NOT similar to API's in any way? If you are,
then you're completely wrong. Especially by today's standards used in
modern re-programmable hardware!
Let's break it down; Both are functional by nature and both are coded
interfaces. Both use libraries. Both make calls to either hardware or
other Applications in software or hardware. Both can make function
calls to hardware. But... ABI's are binary code (low level) and API's
are source code (high level - application/OS based) and that's the
only real major difference between them. Other than that, that's why
Google is using this case for comparison in the first place! ....both
being primarily functional in nature!!!
The Question then, is if ABI's are not Copyrightable as shown in this
case law, then API's being also of a Functional nature are therefore
also NOT Copyrightable! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, May 30 2012 @ 07:59 PM EDT |
Ah, ok, got stiggin cobe so it's a bid fuzzy at the mobent.
---
Linux powered squirrel.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
