Re^5: Copyright on languages

in reply to Re^4: Copyright on languages
in thread Copyright on languages

Actually I was talking of something like a Youtube API or something similar. API's do matter a lot. Imagine a company like Facebook, I would reckon API's are crucial to many aspects of their business.

My point is if the API becomes crucial to your business than the company begins to perceive it as their cash cow. If my company looks at Java as a business I would be equally scared watching clones spring up here and there.

Java today is Intellisense + Eclipse + API. That is all that remains of Java. By the way, I don't agree with Oracle either. I am just trying to think from their perspective. How can they justify investments in Java if there are no clear profits? After all the purpose of business is to make profits. The only other option I see is making Java a paid platform. That is not great for computing either.

Comment on Re^5: Copyright on languages

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: Copyright on languages by andal (Hermit) on May 04, 2012 at 07:49 UTC
Well, designing an API is not simple, but actually providing code for that API is the REAL stuff. Personally, I believe, that if someone has reimplemented some API in a better way, than the original author, then this someone has more rights for profit, than the original designer of the API. If you think about. You get an API and the implementation that does not suit your needs. Now you go ahead and replace part of the package, so that end result suits your needs. Why should you owe something to the package creator for your own work? After all, one doesn't owe anything to Oracle if one writes a program using Java. So why should anyone who created interpreter for java owe to Oracle? Following the logic of Oracle, we should put Copyright event on the idea of using binary code for digital computation and demand revenues from all hardware producers since they use the same API. Intel then may demand revenues from AMD for reimplementation of their assembler and so on. I believe, this is nonsense. Oracle just has too much money, so they can waste it on lawyers :)	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^6: Copyright on languages
by andal (Hermit) on May 04, 2012 at 07:49 UTC

Well, designing an API is not simple, but actually providing code for that API is the REAL stuff. Personally, I believe, that if someone has reimplemented some API in a better way, than the original author, then this someone has more rights for profit, than the original designer of the API.

If you think about. You get an API and the implementation that does not suit your needs. Now you go ahead and replace part of the package, so that end result suits your needs. Why should you owe something to the package creator for your own work? After all, one doesn't owe anything to Oracle if one writes a program using Java. So why should anyone who created interpreter for java owe to Oracle?

Following the logic of Oracle, we should put Copyright event on the idea of using binary code for digital computation and demand revenues from all hardware producers since they use the same API. Intel then may demand revenues from AMD for reimplementation of their assembler and so on.

I believe, this is nonsense. Oracle just has too much money, so they can waste it on lawyers :)

[reply]

In Section Meditations