Earlier quoted context omitted.
EU has the copyright directive with its upload filters.
Not all of Europe is in the EU, though.
Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are very close to the EU culturally even though they are not full members of the union.
Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court
71–80 of 433 posts
Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are specific exceptions for compatibility. Android Java never tried to be compatible, various required APIs were replaced or are just flat out missing from the runtime library.
Where are such compatibility exceptions articulated? Section 107 lists four factors for fair use, including "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole." Trying to achieve full compatibility would seem to require copying more of the original API, not less.
Usually when someone on Oracle's side brings up compatibility, they are referring indirectly to the test suite required for using the Java trademarks. And they usually are also implying that compatibility should be defined solely by Sun/Oracle, ie. that Oracle should be allowed to require your own Java implementation to be fully functional and 100% compliant to their spec before it is in any way legal, and implementing a mere subset of relevant functionality is not permissible.
Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't understand what this case is about. This is about copyrighting API descriptions. Not copying code, but reimplementing an API that someone else created. Think about how many people created each part of the various web APIs. Is XmlHTTPRequest now owned by Microsoft? Who invented the Blink tag? Who owns which parts of the SQL language? The entire software industry is built on the idea that APIs are not copyrig…
You've excluded a huge amount of middle ground. There's a comprise somewhere in the middle that allows compatability but stops blatant copying.
OK, but that's not what this case is about.
Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court
#74>This is a complete dramatization. Are you copying 10k lines of code from a licensed code base into your project without permission and using it in your commercial product? To point back to the substance of the thread and Oracle's claims... Google didn't copy any of Oracle/Sun's Java source code base into Android Java. Oracle lawyers acknowledge this. Instead, Google copied the API of function name spellings and also…
I wonder how a meaningful discussion about namespace trees and API spelling takes place at the Supreme Court considering the background of the justices.
Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
anyone who believes that GPLd dynamically linked libraries impact code written to use them effectively believes that APIs can be copyrighted. (ex: the FSF believes this).
It is different. In the GPL case, you are distributing the software, not just using the API. I don't know if it's different enough, but it's not the exact same issue.
if I distribute the GPL library (say libreadline) with my app, I'd probably agree with you.
If I expect the end user to have libreadline installed on their machine (from debian / redhat repos, and for argument sake Debian/Red Hat/et al aren't distributing my app), I think I'd disagree. I'm not distributing any GPLd code.
I think its a bit more complicated if Debian/Red Hat are distributing my non GPLd app that links against a GPLd library that they also distribute, but aren't really distributing them together. The reason I say this, is because even though they are "distributing" both "together", we wouldn't say that GPLd code and BSD code that they "distribute" "together" infects the BSD code.
I might also agree that its not exactly the same issue, but I do think it should make one think about it.
Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court
#76Question: so if Oracle wins, does that mean no one can create compatible APIs in general? I know a lot of folks have created compatible APIs for Amazon S3, including Oracle themselves. Does this become against the law if Oracle wins? https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/en-us/iaas/Content/Object/Task...
Sort of. Copyright is a civil matter, not criminal, so it requires two to tango. What I mean is, you can copy the API, but then the creator can choose to sue you. Or not. It turns our mostly-open computing landscape into a stand-off, exactly like the current software patent situation. The big guys have all the guns to hold each other off, but they can all take out the small guys who threaten them.
Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court
#77If Google paid some reasonable sum to SUN for using Java in Android, they could have avoided all of this. I bet their lawsuit expenses are now higher.
Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
anyone who believes that GPLd dynamically linked libraries impact code written to use them effectively believes that APIs can be copyrighted. (ex: the FSF believes this).
You may be right, but can you supply a citation for this? I believe many open-core software vendors work around this idea by doing exactly what you suggest: creating an API barrier where the proprietary software lives on one side and the GPL'd software on the other. It requires some care so you don't cross GPL'd software into the proprietary side, but it's fairly common. I think the Linux Nvidia GPU driver works this…
citation that the FSF believes that GPLd libraries when dynamically linked require the all the code to be GPLd?
https://gitlab.com/gnu-clisp/clisp/blob/dd313099db351c90431c...
or something else?
I agree that many create that API barrier (ex: ZFS on Linux). Those that argue that ZFS on Linux is legally problematic agree with the FSF's definition (which I would argue leads to the belief that APIs are copyrightable). Those that think ZFS on Linux is on a fine footing believe that APIs aren't copyrightable and one can create a shim to decouple your non GPLd code from GPL "libraries", especially if the coupling that ends up happening is never distributed as done by the end user.
Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
True. IMHO IP law is based on a moral and not a utilitarian basis, and as we know from almost all recent FLOSS projects especially in Cloud (Linux, Kubernetes, ...) IP is just a massive hindrance to productivity and has a net negative effect on the industry.
The US Constitution explicitly cites utilitarian goals in the Copyright Clause.
True, but that motivation was based on assumptions which are no longer true. Things no longer take effort to copy, and information can flow across the world in an instant. There is no longer any need to encourage copyright in order to get better information from foreign countries.
Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court
#80> Those in Oracle's camp say if its copyright is not protected, that will discourage innovation. Look at the way YouTube Content ID encourages innovation and then imagine GitHub Content ID. “Your repository contains 3 copyrighted method calls. You’ve been issued a copyright strike.” I’d love to see every open source repo on the internet go private for 1 day as a demonstration of what could be lost if copyright is all…
anyone who believes that GPLd dynamically linked libraries impact code written to use them effectively believes that APIs can be copyrighted. (ex: the FSF believes this).
Those two are complete different concepts within copyright.
Oracle claim is that google copies of header files requires copy right permission, with google saying that header files are either not protected by copyright or that using them is fair use.
FSF claim in regard to dynamically linked libraries is that using them in a work creates a derivative work. For C code, software without its dynamically linked libraries won't even load past the linker, and in their view, a judge/jury will see the program as a single work rather than two independent works.
This court case will not define what is a derivative work or when two combined works should be seen as independent of each other. It may explore the limits of what is copyrightable and what is fair use, which is interesting in terms of API's and compatibility but less so for defining the limits of the GPL as an copyright license.