Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 433 posts

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#181

Post by Shared404 »

ForHackernews wrote: post #45
donmcronald wrote: post #4

> 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…

> A bazillion failing builds would open some eyes IMO. No it wouldn't. Lawyers and executives don't care about your error-prone CI/CD pipeline.

But their rich clients do.

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#182

Post by bitwize »

arethuza wrote: post #94
jasode wrote: post #49

>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 used to know a very bright chap who refused to use meaningful identifiers - his argument was mainly that you could never capture enough information in an identifier to be really accurate so you shouldn't even try. Nice chap, but fortunately he was a school friend and not a colleague! Maybe we should just use GUIDs for everything :-)

Hello, I'd like to talk to you about Urbit. Have you accepted Curtis Yarvin as your personal savior of your digital life?

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#183

Post by emilecantin »

dragonwriter wrote: post #131
jasode wrote: post #49

>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…

> Google didn't copy any of Oracle/Sun's Java source code base into Android Java. Oracle lawyers acknowledge this. That's not true, there were nine lines of source code (range check) copied verbatim, not counting the 11,500 lines of API declarations. But the API declarations are source code, too. > If Oracle ultimately wins, it seems like millions of programmers will have to reach for a thesaurus to find synonyms to…

IIRC Judge Alsup (the original judge, and the only person in this whole shit-show who knows anything about programming) ruled against this, as he determined that there were only so many ways to write a range-checking function. He said it was entirely plausible that the Google developer would have come up with the exact same function independently.

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#184

Post by Wowfunhappy »

simiones wrote: post #164
dontblink wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making a distinction when there isn't one from the legal opinion perspective.

There is actually, and the court argued as such: if Android had been compatible with Java programs, Google could have claimed a fair-use exemption. Since Android can't run many Java programs, by design, they can't claim such an exemption. WINE could very likely win a legal battle through claiming a fair-use exemption (of course, if the case fails, they wouldn't have to go to court at all).

Why is the distinction between "runs with zero changes" and "runs with minimal changes"—or even just "runs with fewer changes"—so critical?

Where is the line? Is Android "compatible" with Java programs if those programs need to be recompiled first, but no source edits are necessary? What if source edits are necessary, but can be automated? What if recompiling isn't necessary, but you need to hex edit the binary?

"Compatibility" is a spectrum, and I'd say Android falls within that range.

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#185

Post by belorn »

mantap wrote: post #118
belorn wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You don't just dynamically link a library. You link it and then use its API , it's precisely the using of the API that creates the derivative work (if you accept FSF's position). I don't see how e.g. calling dlopen() on its own but not using the API could create a derivative work any more than calling fopen() does.

The original case for RMS when he created the position for dynamically linked libraries where when apple created an GCC version that had a Objective-C frontend. RMS initially did not think this would be covered by copyright but after talking with the lawyer Eben Moglen he got the following explanation: A judge would unlikely see it as an objective-C fronted as an independent work that is talking with GCC, but rather just a compiler. That compiler would be the work, and thus a derivative work since it combines the GCC code and the objective-C fronted.

Nothing in there is about API's. There is also nothing about linking. It just about what a judge would perceive as being "the work". FSF however do seem to have a policy about enforcing the license at the technical distinction of linking, but that is just a policy decision based on where they think a judge would likely side with them. Apple were free to go to court arguing that it is not a compiler but rather different independent works simply communicating with each other, but they chose not to do so.

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#186

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

mantap wrote: post #118
belorn wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You don't just dynamically link a library. You link it and then use its API , it's precisely the using of the API that creates the derivative work (if you accept FSF's position). I don't see how e.g. calling dlopen() on its own but not using the API could create a derivative work any more than calling fopen() does.

No, this is incorrect. You can link to an alternative implementation with the same API without any licensing issues.

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#188

Post by jkaplowitz »

emilecantin wrote: post #183
dragonwriter wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google didn't copy any of Oracle/Sun's Java source code base into Android Java. Oracle lawyers acknowledge this. That's not true, there were nine lines of source code (range check) copied verbatim, not counting the 11,500 lines of API declarations. But the API declarations are source code, too. > If Oracle ultimately wins, it seems like millions of programmers will have to reach for a thesaurus to find synonyms to…

IIRC Judge Alsup (the original judge, and the only person in this whole shit-show who knows anything about programming) ruled against this, as he determined that there were only so many ways to write a range-checking function. He said it was entirely plausible that the Google developer would have come up with the exact same function independently.

Yeah, he did. Not common, but hey, Haskell is his middle name. (Really, it is.)

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#189

Post by salawat »

Spivak wrote: post #122
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't the compatibility layer be infringing copyright?

This is where I think a lot of people are talking past this case. If you use the API surface area for the purposes of interoperability with existing software then you're covered and it's not infringement. If you use the API surface area for your own software because you like the design, copying it is easier than coming up with something new, or you want to provide a familiar programming environment to developers then…

Distinction without a difference. My code is an interoperability layer between making a computer do a particular computation and other developers or composers of software.

Looking at an API and going "you could do this any other way than ours" is absolutely nothing more than a fundamental deconstruction of the entire field, at which point it's just Math. You're wasting everyone else's time. No one gets to copyright 2+2.

I'm not shoving in 3 API layers to represent "Math.max()".

Re: Google and Oracle's decade-long copyright battle reaches Supreme Court

#190

Post by bismuthsalt »

simiones wrote: post #174
dagw wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that if literally all you do is change the names and spellings then you'll still be in violation of copyright, right? In general that is largely true. In the particular type of copyright being argued in this particular case Oracle has stated that changing the name or spelling of the methods would have been enough to avoid being in violation: Using the district court's "java.lang.Math.max" example, Orac…

You are misinterpreting that argument. To prove copyrightability, Oracle had to show that designing an API is a creative act and not a purely mechanical/functional one. That is the purpose of this argument: if the function would only work if named java.lang.Math.max and not work if named Math.maximum, then anyone describing the same concept would be forced to use the same name, so the name wouldn't be copyrightable.…

Designing an API is a creative act. An API is source code. Witness thousands of languages, all with recognizably different standard libraries, including languages like Go or Dart created by Google themselves. The problem is less with individual examples like "max" vs "maximum" or "write" vs "scribble", but more with thousands of packages, classes and methods, 99% of which have the exact names and structure as the Sun's Java ones. That is blatant theft. Google stole Java code from Sun. Shame on them.

What we need the law to do is to distinguish between copying a piece of code and using a piece of code. Just because I use your code doesn't mean you own my code too. What we need the software industry to understand is that relying on a proprietary library makes it impossible to cheaply switch your code to an alternative implementation without rewriting your own code. Alternatives exist: use software with an open license model, or shim out the proprietary library.

Post reply on HN