"If you're going to write some code, then you usually choose to base your work on a particular language, which means you copy a lot of the design decisions and original work that went into it, and that is hopefully what everyone wanted ITFP. You (or O'Reilly) copyright a thorough description of the language's syntax, not the syntax itself."
Yes, exactly like APIs.
"An API's function signatures are a more specific and elaborate kind of syntax, but all are just facts about the world now that someone published the thing. "
This is just plainly not true.
Nobody on this thread has given a reasonable argument as to why APIs are not more or less like code.
In fact, almost everyone's attempt to demonstrated that 'API
s are different that code' have done the opposite, and highlighted how similar they are.
I believe HNers just don't like copyright, and don't like Oracle.
Yes, exactly like APIs.
"An API's function signatures are a more specific and elaborate kind of syntax, but all are just facts about the world now that someone published the thing. "
This is just plainly not true.
Nobody on this thread has given a reasonable argument as to why APIs are not more or less like code.
In fact, almost everyone's attempt to demonstrated that 'API s are different that code' have done the opposite, and highlighted how similar they are.
I believe HNers just don't like copyright, and don't like Oracle.