The sequence, structure and organization of those method signatures, in those 37 Java packages, were all GPL'd in the OpenJDK in 2007 by Sun. Regardless of whether API's can be copyrighted or not, Google had every right to use the code Sun GPL'd.
Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
71–80 of 344 posts
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the logic of saying that the API itself is a creative work and should be copyrighted. Creating a solid, logical API structure isn't simple. But I believe the API signature itself (function name, argument types, return type) should not be copyrightable, in the interests of the industry as a whole. Google didn't steal the implementation, they just reused the same function signatures to make their drop-in r…
But, and I think this is really the main point, Google didn't just use the API signatures they used the API documentation to preserve the semantic meaning of those signatures which are necessary to make the API actually useful. I think Google could argue very successfully that literally just the API signatures should fall under fair use but that's not really what this is about.
The semantic meaning of the signatures IS the API. The whole forms the interface. This includes bugs, weird behaviour, shortcomings.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#73Curious to hear your reasons for calling Red Hat a dark horse. (Which I presume is some kind of slur/holds a derogatory meaning)
dark horse just means not a main favored candidate
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#74Curious to hear your reasons for calling Red Hat a dark horse. (Which I presume is some kind of slur/holds a derogatory meaning)
"Dark horse" isn't a slur or pejorative in general. It's roughly equivalent to "long shot" or "underdog" or something like that.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#75Curious to hear your reasons for calling Red Hat a dark horse. (Which I presume is some kind of slur/holds a derogatory meaning)
[deleted]
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#76Oracle is at that stage where they didn't invent or do anything right in the last 5 years but try to get money from lawsuits.
This is actually not true. Their cloud offering is doing really well. There's some impressive figures here: http://realmoney.thestreet.com/articles/09/15/2016/oracles-c...
A more trickily written article you could not find. Oracle is busting their humps to get major ESC on their clouds but they've missed the chance on some of the really outlandishly big fish.
Time will tell if they manage to met BofA or a similar ultrabig FI and that could be called a success, but short of that all they can do is pay folks to write wrongheaded quarterly analysis and say "gosh isn't this better than Amazon?"
Which is totally absurd. Comically so.
And from the perspective of actually using their tech, you're better off scooping a mug of old compost and dumping it in a sizzling pan of oil and letting the oil spatter burn you. It will be a more enjoyable experience.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone should write a program that generates all possible function names and argument types and declares them copyrighted, then release them all to the public.
You could, by a similar method, generate all possible images but that doesn't mean you would be able to copyright them all. The creative element would become the act of identifying specific images within your set with artistic merit -- those would be copyrightable.
Nope, there is no "merit test" for copyright. Copyright attaches when the creation is fixed in tangible form.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#78Oracle is at that stage where they didn't invent or do anything right in the last 5 years but try to get money from lawsuits.
This is actually not true. Their cloud offering is doing really well. There's some impressive figures here: http://realmoney.thestreet.com/articles/09/15/2016/oracles-c...
Growth rate is a nonsense metric. If you're starting from nothing and invest a shitload of money in sales you'll have an amazing growth rate. IBM and Oracle are both way behind azure, google and aws.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not much actually, the developers of Go mainly wanted shorter compile times than C++ offered.
Pretty sure different people wanted different things. Some people certainly wanted better concurrency.
Sure, that too. Both of which however had little to do with Java.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#80Okay, either I'm crazy or everyone else is. Assuming the court isn't trying to set a new precedent with regards to software it seems like Oracle should have easily won this case. There is an argument to be made that APIs shouldn't be copyrightable but surely it's not fair use -- Google's use of Java doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria.
Google was found in violation of copying some source code if I am not mistaken, but this is about whether the concept of an API itself should be copyrightable, (how many ways can you write an API for a function that adds two integers together?) and that's the big problem here. If handled badly, it can literally kill the software industry. What I don't get is Oracle not realizing that this could kill their SQL busines…
I mean the courts aren't exactly robotic in this sense. It has to be a creative work, for the same reason you couldn't try to copyright a trivial sentence you wouldn't get copyright protection on a method description that adds two numbers. Also, it's the whole work that's copyrighted, not its individual parts. It's not that Google just borrowed a few method signatures, it's that they took all of them along with their relationships and meanings.