|
It is possible to generate API documentation in data-driven manner. By observing a large number of programs that use a given API, it is possible to infer the typical usages, as well the required contracts and directives.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bruch|first=Marcel|last2=Mezini|first2=Mira|last3=Monperrus|first3=Martin|title=Mining subclassing directives to improve framework reuse|url=http://oadoi.org/10.1109/msr.2010.5463347|journal=7th IEEE Working Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR 2010)|publisher=IEEE|volume=|pages=|doi=10.1109/msr.2010.5463347|via=}}</ref> Then, templates can be used to generate natural language from the mined data.
==Copyright controversy==
{{Main|Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc.}}
In 2010, [[Oracle Corporation]] sued [[Google]] for having distributed a new implementation of Java embedded in the [[Android (operating system)|Android]] operating system.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.drdobbs.com/jvm/232901227 |title=Oracle and the End of Programming As We Know It |publisher=DrDobbs |date=2012-05-01 |accessdate=2012-05-09}}</ref> Google had not acquired any permission to reproduce the Java API, although permission had been given to the similar [[OpenJDK]] project. Judge [[William Alsup]] ruled in the ''[[Oracle v. Google]]'' case that APIs cannot be [[copyrighted]] in the U.S, and that a victory for Oracle would have widely expanded copyright protection and allowed the copyrighting of simple software commands:
<blockquote>To accept Oracle's claim would be to allow anyone to copyright one version of code to carry out a system of commands and thereby bar all others from writing its own different versions to carry out all or part of the same commands.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/63756-apis-cant-be-copyrighted-says-judge-in-oracle-case |title=APIs Can't be Copyrighted Says Judge in Oracle Case |publisher=TGDaily |date=2012-06-01 |accessdate=2012-12-06}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| url = https://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Judge-Alsup-Ruling-on-Copyrightability-of-APIs.pdf
| title = Oracle America, Inc. vs. Google Inc.
| date = 2012-05-31 | accessdate = 2013-09-22
| publisher = [[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]
}}</ref></blockquote>
In 2014, however, Alsup's ruling was overturned on appeal, though the question of whether such use of APIs constitutes [[fair use]] was left unresolved.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.cnet.com/news/court-sides-with-oracle-over-android-in-java-patent-appeal/ | title=Court sides with Oracle over Android in Java patent appeal | work=CNET | date=May 9, 2014 | accessdate=2014-05-10 | author=Rosenblatt, Seth}}</ref>
In 2016, following a two-week trial, a jury determined that Google's reimplementation of the Java API constituted fair use, but Oracle vowed to appeal the decision.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/google-wins-trial-against-oracle-as-jury-finds-android-is-fair-use/|title=Google beats Oracle—Android makes "fair use" of Java APIs|website=Ars Technica|access-date=2016-07-28}}</ref> Oracle won on its appeal, with the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit]] ruling that Google's use of the APIs did not qualify for fair use.<ref name="bbn march2018">{{cite web | url = https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-27/oracle-wins-revival-of-billion-dollar-case-against-google | title = Oracle Wins Revival of Billion-Dollar Case Against Google | first= Susan | last =Decker |date = March 27, 2018 | accessdate = March 27, 2018 | work = [[Bloomberg Businessweek]] }}</ref>
== Examples ==
| 