I understand the argument but have yet to see one that has a logical consistent separation of API and the rest of the code. In other words, if you go down the API = recipe path then you logically should go down the code = recipe path as well. After all, code is nothing but a complex recipe for a processor to execute.
> In other words, if you go down the API = recipe path then you logically should go down the code = recipe path as well. After all, code is nothing but a complex recipe for a processor to execute.
Recipes that are a list of ingredients are not copyrightable. Recipes that describe putting love into each stroke of mixing the ingredients and how you learned to spread the frosting just so from your gram are copyrightable.
IMHO, the API is the former, code is the latter. The fact that both code and the API are recipes does not imply you have to choose between both being copyrightable or neither being copyrightable.
When the code of a function is compiled fully until CPU instructions, the line declaring the function name and arguments disappears in the process; it's only used as metadata by the compiler (AOT or JIT).
There's no x86/ARM/etc instructions that represent a function declaration.
Note that many languages embed function names in the binary, though they would work just as well with any other name that mangled in a way that wouldn't break ABI.
No java code you write is represented by an x86/ARM/etc instruction. Everything disappears when it's compiled to byte code. If that's what makes an API metadata then every line of Java written is just metadata.
Disagree. When you write a Java statement you are clearly intending for certain instructions to get executed as a result of processing that statement. When you write a method signature, that doesn't represent any kind of intention for something to take place.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, but all the Java code you write definitely does go away
> When you write a Java statement you are clearly intending for certain instructions to get executed as a result of processing that statement. When you write a method signature, that doesn't represent any kind of intention for something to take place.
If we accept this argument then that means APIs are more copyrightable than code. Instructions, as in the context of recipes or process definitions, are not copyrightable. If we say code is an intent for something to be executed then that's an argument that it should not be copyrightable. Saying that an API is different and not simply instructions means that it should be subject to copyright.
The question is to what extent that content is functionally necessary.
It is possible to have two different programs that do the same thing. And therefore the exact code used is copyrightable.
But it is not possible to compile my code written for Oracle against Google instead unless the method signatures match exactly. Therefore the method signatures are more functionally necessary than the exact code.
Agreed, I think code is more like a recipe than an API is. But I don't think the parent was arguing that APIs should or shouldn't be copyrightable because of how they compare to recipes, they were just answering your question as to how they can be clearly differentiated from code.
