Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Discuss] can you copyright an API?



Jerry Feldman wrote:
> But, since Oracle is claiming the API is patented...

I haven't read the groklaw coverage, but I haven't seen that claimed
elsewhere.


Bill Bogstad wrote:
>Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> The main question of interest will be whether or not the API is patentable.
> 
> As I understand it, even software patents have to do with actually
> "doing" something.   An API doesn't actually do anything, it is the
> underlying implementation that does.   If I could claim patent on an
> API, it would seem to me that I could claim your book describing my
> API violated my patent as well.
> 
> In any case, I think it is Google's actual Dalvik VM that might be
> subject to Oracle's patents (and part of this lawsuit); but I don't
> think the API is relevant to patents. 

This matches my understanding.


Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> Even if an API is copyrightable, we've already concluded it's easily
> circumventable.

Renaming the functions largely defeats the point to using an existing
API. If you are going to do that, you'd be better off playing it safe
and just do a "clean room" design of your own API.


Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> Tom Metro wrote:
>> Sun granted a royalty-free license to use the applicable patents to 
>> everyone, regardless of whether they are using OpenJDK or not. 
>  
> Question: Do you think Google is going to be permitted to sell licenses 
> of something Sun patented, when Sun conditioned the free use upon the 
> GPL and Sun sells it under some other license?   No way man.  

Right, seems unlikely, but...


> If Sun granted royalty-free license to use and distribute the
> (patented) application under the terms of GPL, then the royalty-free
> (patent) license would be conditioned on the continued compliance to
> GPL by whoever received it.

Sounds logical, but where is the document that stipulates that. (GPLv2
by itself doesn't.)

This is not a case of a license granted to only a few parties,
negotiated behind closed doors. Instead it is a "drive by" license where
any visitor to the OpenJDK site can download the JDK and be governed by
the legal documents provided on that site and bundled with the code.

 -Tom

-- 
Tom Metro
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA
"Enterprise solutions through open source."
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/



BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!



Boston Linux & Unix / webmaster@blu.org