Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd May 2012 22:32 UTC, submitted by PLan
Permalink for comment 516861
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
galvanash,
I understand what you are saying. But there is obviously more gray than you're implying.
In order to convey the precise ideas for an API, one must express the API, no exception.
When humans talk to one another, there's a great deal of room for expression. But when talking to a compiler, language constructs have a precise semantic purpose. In order to supply the idea of a compatible API structures & functions & classes to the compiler, it's necessarily going to take a form semantically resembling the original, this is an unavoidable part of creating a compatible API.
It seems the court claimed the ideas aren't copyrightable, which we already knew all along, but stopped short of saying whether expressions of those ideas were copyrightable when they produce exceedingly similar code to the original expression.