So all we know is copying an API is fair use if one is reimplementing an API for a new smartphone OS one is supporting.

Everything else is still unknown, like what other things are fair use and even whether APIs are copyrightable to begin with.

Β· Β· Web Β· 2 Β· 0 Β· 1
@cj well, what to do about this? Keep voting every X years and hope for the best?

@lain voting?

I just plan to do my usual of not implementing other peoples' APIs at the moment.

@lain Not in the "header file" sense that was presented in the court case, which is the work of art under Copyright.

Connecting to a remote machine and invoking the right magical byte sequence is what we still call an "API" but in US copyright (& criminal) law is very different.

The AP spec itself is a copyrightable work of art, but you don't link that text in to do remote calls.

@lain this unresolved question still has major implications for, say, Open api (swagger) because the API is described in a machine readable document -- so whoever wrote that file owns the maybe copyright.

But OpenAPI autogenerates code from it -- so now it's back to the old Free Software style of questions, because any infringement could now possibly include all implementors (client & server).

It's why I manually created the JSON-LD files go-fed uses, to skip that risk.

@cj good idea but I have to be honest, I don't want to play these kinds of games anymore.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!