This is turning into the Bleak House of copyright cases.
Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
91–100 of 344 posts
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#92Let's slap a great big IANAL on this before I start: The fair use decision was wrong. It relied on a fundamental misunderstanding of the term transformative where the use of the code was considered rather than merely the implementation. So Oracle has a huge case here. Moreover, practically it doesn't matter. Even if fair use is established in this case, the door has been left wide open to hordes of API copyright trol…
If implementing an interface is against copyright, then every Java program is infringing on Oracle's copyright.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#93Oracle is such a shit company. There are still some great hackers there but Larry Ellison is an asshole, and I don't envy anyone who has to work for him even indirectly. "Left Oracle's Java business in tatters" eh? Where was their mobile OS? Their Dalvik? The wounds to Java have all been self-inflicted. If they succeed in copyrighting the API then where does this leave OpenJDK? Operating at the mercy of Larry fucking…
fsharp |> welcomes all alienated Java veterans and newbies with open arms!
If you don't like maven, you're going to need a padded cell when you move to nuget.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree, but I don't really know what to do about it. Surely a document describing a useful software interface (GUI, CLI, API) is a creative work and takes effort to produce. Unless we just agree that it's a necessary exception for the purposes of interoperbility I'm not sure how I would argue that it shouldn't fall under copyright protection.
Copyright would apply to the documentation itself, or the published header files themselves, as works; it wouldn't apply to the API itself. Mind you, Oracle was suing Google for using the header files themselves; since Google could have easily just typed up their own versions that did the same thing, it's almost more of a "plagiarism" case than a "copyright infringement" case: they shipped something that was exactly…
>it's almost more of a "plagiarism" case than a "copyright infringement"
Do you know what the definition of plagiarism is? Google it, "copyright infringement" is listed as a synonym.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#95Yeah. I got a suggestion. Don't join the industry. And if you're still in college, don't major in Computer Science Edit: Got hellbanned lol. @gregnoire: HN is a giant circlejerk You prolly think this site is so great and intellectual just because it has ycombinator in the URL. Internet comments fundamentally suck @DanBC: Pretty sure I got hellbanned. It's been an hour, still can't make new comments @sjwright: The med…
> Got hellbanned
HN rarely hellbans, and not in cases like this. I'm not a mod and I'm not speaking for them, but I'm pretty sure they usually warn first, and that they announce bans.
You haven't been banned. You have been i) heavily downvoted and ii) not upvoted.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#96How does OpenJDK stay out of violation if Oracle wins? Doesn't OpenJDK basically copy the API as well?
Oracle owns copyright on OpenJDK, so it can't 'violate'.
Maybe more precisely, if you regard the API in question as copyrightable, Oracle has clearly licensed it under GPLv2 plus the Classpath Exception.
Also, the issue of copyrightability of the Java SE API has already been definitively decided in this case, in Oracle's favor.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#97I'm really looking forward to the next 5 or 6 years, when all of the software patents created in the 90s and 2000's expire. It can't come soon enough.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright would apply to the documentation itself, or the published header files themselves, as works; it wouldn't apply to the API itself. Mind you, Oracle was suing Google for using the header files themselves; since Google could have easily just typed up their own versions that did the same thing, it's almost more of a "plagiarism" case than a "copyright infringement" case: they shipped something that was exactly…
>it's almost more of a "plagiarism" case than a "copyright infringement" Do you know what the definition of plagiarism is? Google it, "copyright infringement" is listed as a synonym.
Actually, plagiarism and copyright infringement are different things. For example, it is possible to plagiarize something that is not copyrighted, and many forms of copyright infringement wouldn't fit the definition of plagiarism.
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#99[deleted]
Re: Oracle refuses to accept pro-Google “fair use” verdict in API battle
#100Oracle is set to repeat the trajectory of SCO. Their primary product (the Oracle DB engine) is being displaced by the NoSQL and things like Postgres. The "next generation" of developers equals SQL engines with "old and bad", and when forced, it ends up with Postgres anyway.
Oracle used to survive in significant part by the support of the "database administrators" class. This layer of support is also becoming thinner and older.
There's essentially no way forward for Oracle. They can use hostage tactics to squeeze money out of exiting customers for a few more years, but otherwise they are irrelevant in the tech landscape.
Except for Java, that is. The current tech is powered by Linux and there isn't really anything as big as Java on Linux. Python has been pretty significant and Go is making inroads, but the default is all Java. It is going to be interesting to watch how this will play out.