Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#781

Post by pyrale » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 10:20 PM UTC

strenholme wrote: post #777

I am very glad to see this. Having a “you can abuse copyright to have proprietary control over an API” precedent on the books had a chilling effect for programmers. Let me give you one example as an electronic musician. Once upon a time, Steinberg created an API for connecting programs which simulate musical instruments and musical effects (think reverb, echo, flanger, etc.) called VST. This API was always proprietar…

> I am very glad to see this. Having a “you can abuse copyright to have proprietary control over an API” precedent on the books was a chilling effect for programmers.

It was always possible to release APIs as open-source. There's as much chilling effect about proprietary software as there ever was being careful about using licensed work, and that was never a problem.

On the other hand, the hunting season on companies providing software is now open. You're a startup providing a new database, or a well-thought library? Shit, you better take the VC money before someone else does and puts you out of business. And when a company like Amazon comes with an offer, you better not be in a bargaining mood.

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#782

Post by dpe82 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 10:22 PM UTC

tinus_hn wrote: post #773

WalterBright wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netscape went out of business because their browser crashed far more frequently than Explorer. I've heard all the sob stories, but I was sick of the constant crashing of Netscape, and so tried Explorer. Explorer crashed too, but not nearly as often.

Microsoft had FrontPage create pages that crashed Netscape.

Netscape produced a browser that could be crashed by a malformed page.

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#783

Post by Daho0n » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

BoorishBears wrote: post #751

dlubarov wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you be more specific about the differences your talking about? As far as I'm aware, Google never added their own features to the language itself. Granted, they were a bit slow to support new versions like Java 8. They also chose not to support libraries like awt, but I wouldn't consider those part of the Java language; rather they're part of Java SE.

I already mentioned multiple above.

No, you mentioned things Google didn't implement. That's not the same as making it incompatible. In this case that would be Google adding things to Java, not skipping some.

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#784

Post by monocasa » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 10:26 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #767

monocasa wrote: post #708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because the core patents behind the features you're asking about are very much in Oracle's possession, as those class library improvements were overwhelmingly written by Sun/Oracle engineers. Those other actors you're talking about absolutely contribute, but not in as nearly a fundamental to the implementation of the library and runtime definitions kind of way.

Are you now asserting that Sun/Oracle has pattents regarding Azul's GC implementation, PTC real time threading and AOT compiler, Aicas hard real time GC, IBM mainframe implementations of their own JVM and WebSphere Real Time VM?

No, I'm asserting that those (while being extremely valuable additions to the field) have nothing to do with a newer version of Java which is what you were asking about.

> the next excuse for not updating Android Java to latest versions.

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#785

Post by Daho0n » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 10:27 PM UTC

jkingsbery wrote: post #623

curt15 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court made no holding on whether APIs can be copyrighted. "We shall assume, but purely for argument’s sake, that the entire Sun Java API falls within the definition of that which can be copy-righted. "

Yes, a good point, it does. Breyer's opinion does say the court is arguing that the API is copy-righted, but used under fair use (as opposed to not copy-righted, in which case fair use doesn't make sense). But my point about what seems to be the main distinction making it copy-right-but-fair-use is the declaration vs. implementation concern, a distinction that logically exists (so I think the outcome is correct!), bu…

>the court is arguing that the API is copy-righted

No they specifically omitted saying this.

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#786

Post by WalterBright » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 10:28 PM UTC

tinus_hn wrote: post #773

WalterBright wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netscape went out of business because their browser crashed far more frequently than Explorer. I've heard all the sob stories, but I was sick of the constant crashing of Netscape, and so tried Explorer. Explorer crashed too, but not nearly as often.

Microsoft had FrontPage create pages that crashed Netscape.

Netscape crashing on a web page is Netscape's fault.

Similarly, if the D compiler crashes when compiling a D source file, it's the D core team's fault.

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#787

Post by shmerl » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 10:30 PM UTC

That's good for practical purposes, but they still didn't rule on APIs being copyrightable or not to begin with? It's a bit weird to say "it's fair use" but not say "it's not copyrightable in the first place".

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#788

Post by Natanael_L » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 10:34 PM UTC

anamexis wrote: post #716

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how this would effect things like Preact too, which for operability sake, uses the exact same API as React.

In that specific example, I don't think it would really affect them, since both React and Preact are MIT licensed.

One of the issues here is that it's not even clear under which license the API should be covered. Does the existing software license also cover the API, or must it be explicitly defined?

What happens when an API is co-created by different software developers which each creates their own software under different licenses, through communications which themselves aren't explicitly licensed (like over email lists), and then summarize what they agree on in text instead of code (like the RFC process)?

At no point have either one of them explicitly given permission to use their respective contributions under another license. Even if they agree that the RFC text is public domain, that technically do not extend to implementations of the API which it describes (as those are different works!). And there exists no official reference code with legal approval from all contributors, whose license could be adopted by other developers.

It would be such a mess...

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#789

Post by Ericson2314 » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 10:36 PM UTC

gwd wrote: post #765

Ericson2314 wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say one black-box reimplements x86? Say one makes a "transformative work" with a number of extensions? I fail to see why an ISA is fundamentally different than a standard library.

> I fail to see why an ISA is fundamentally different than a standard library. As GP said, the difference is whether it's patented. If Sun had patented parts of the API (or algorithms necessary to implement it), then Oracle would have another weapon against Google even after Google was granted a fair-use defense.

Sure I'm not disagreeing with the legal history, but on what merits is one patentable, and the other either fair use to reimplement or not even copywritable!!

I could understand Intel having a CPU patent for specific CPUs, but an specific ISA?!

A really interesting test case would be to implement an isomorphic encoding to x86 with same instruction widths and what-not such that it's trivial to convert binaries from one to the other, and modify compilers (especially the JIT ones).

Re: Google’s copying of the Java SE API was fair use [pdf]

#790

Post by ekianjo » Mon, Apr 05, 2021, 10:40 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #760

btilly wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the result is a big relief, I think it's not as decisive as I'm noticing some headlines (and commenters) are claiming. It is even less decisive than you're saying. The fact that the Supreme Court decided not to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that APIs are copyrightable means that binding precedent on every court except the Supreme is that they are. And for fair use, one of…

Netscape went out of business because their browser crashed far more frequently than Explorer. I've heard all the sob stories, but I was sick of the constant crashing of Netscape, and so tried Explorer. Explorer crashed too, but not nearly as often.

Yup, I can clearly remember Netscape crashing very very often. It was definitely the worse browser.