3 ms·

>> you're spreading misinformation. > I am most certainly not. I concede that I am not clear on how much this serves as a precedent if at all, but my comments

>> you're spreading misinformation. > I am most certainly not. I concede that I am not clear on how much this serves as a precedent if at all, but my comments are not predicated on that issue in the least (it is a minor point at best). This: > The only difference is that before (as Google did) you could make two arguments: 1) that APIs aren't copyrightable to begin with, and 2) if they are, then you're making fair use of them. Now only option 2 exists (with the caveat of the ruling serving as a precedent, as other commenters say). is incorrect. Whether or not your comments are predicated on, you know, your comments themselves, I don't care. > Android is not compatible with Java sources. There is a whole lot of code that works on Android because those 37 Java packages are API-compatible, which was pretty important back in 2008. You can argue that's creating an incompatible Java ecosystem in order to allow Google to bootstrap an Android ecosystem, but that is compatibility. As for your web APIs/protocol thing you're on about, I'd suggest defining what exactly you're talking about for anyone to discuss it with you. As it is you seem to be vaguely waving at something you've already defined to not be subject to copyright in order to give an example of something not subject to copyright...but now with a name that appeals to a broad audience (speaking of PR...)

pron 11y ago
> is incorrect. Even if it is, calling that "spreading misinformation" is a stretch, as the words "at worst" would make the statement completely true. Also, if the case serves as no precedent whatsoever how could it have an effect? If it does have some, then what I said holds, and if it doesn't, then there was no cause for panic to begin with, and my point doubly holds. > There is a whole lot of code that works on Android because those 37 Java packages are API-compatible. In general, no Java library works on Android except by happy coincidence, as Android conforms with none of the several Java standards. Some libraries (that happen to only use the particular subset Google has chosen to implement) may just so happen to work, true, but it is not true that Android is interoperable with Java for any well-accepted definition of "interoperable" or "Java". Whether or not that's enough to make Google's implementation fall under fair-use is a separate question, but my point is that even if Google's use isn't fair use, that has little bearing on other cases where much stronger "drop-in" compatibility was sought. > I'd suggest defining what exactly you're talking about for anyone to discuss it with you. Certainly. I am referring to this: "Copyright protection subsists .. in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression"[1]. Explanation here[2]. A specific description of a web API is certainly copyrighted (like any text), but the API it describes is not because it is not fixed. There can be many wildly different texts all describing the same web API. This is not true for library APIs, that are fixed text, just like any other code (that is not sufficient to make them copyrightable, but it is necessary). Programming languages are -- similarly to web APIs but not library APIs -- not fixed. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 [2]: http://www.mateoaboy.com/f6/blog_files/804f4c5940fe299168ea68a195376c06-3.html http://www.mateoaboy.com/f6/blog_files/804f4c5940fe299168ea6...
- orf 11y ago
  > In general, no Java library works on Android except by happy coincidence Well that's just not true now is it.
  - pron 11y ago
    It is true. No Java standard is supported by Android: not SE (maybe some of the new SE compact profiles, but those don't apply to Android's version of Java), not any ME profile, and not any other more obscure Java standards. If a Java library happens to only use the "Android subset" then it will work, but as that subset is not specified by any Java edition or profile, such compatibility can only be coincidental (of course, Google made sure that the libraries they thought may help their ecosystem will work, so it's not a coincidence from that perspective, but it certainly does not make their case for interoperability).
    - incepted 11y ago
      You are technically right on all these points and yet, wrong overall. See my response above [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10850585 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10850585
- incepted 11y ago
  > In general, no Java library works on Android except by happy coincidence This is not true at all. Every single library I have ever added in my build.gradle has always worked. Every. Single. Time. Even libraries that were compiled with Java 8, which is the most baffling thing, if you think about it (since Android doesn't support Java 8). Most of these libraries were compiled and deployed to the Maven repo by Java developers who had no idea whether their library was going to be used on Android. And yet, it does. This is no happy coincidence.
  - lovelearning 11y ago
    Have you tried Apache Lucene? Java libraries that declare manifest service declarations won't work.

pron 11y ago

> is incorrect. Even if it is, calling that "spreading misinformation" is a stretch, as the words "at worst" would make the statement completely true. Also, if the case serves as no precedent whatsoever how could it have an effect? If it does have some, then what I said holds, and if it doesn't, then there was no cause for panic to begin with, and my point doubly holds. > There is a whole lot of code that works on Android because those 37 Java packages are API-compatible. In general, no Java library works on Android except by happy coincidence, as Android conforms with none of the several Java standards. Some libraries (that happen to only use the particular subset Google has chosen to implement) may just so happen to work, true, but it is not true that Android is interoperable with Java for any well-accepted definition of "interoperable" or "Java". Whether or not that's enough to make Google's implementation fall under fair-use is a separate question, but my point is that even if Google's use isn't fair use, that has little bearing on other cases where much stronger "drop-in" compatibility was sought. > I'd suggest defining what exactly you're talking about for anyone to discuss it with you. Certainly. I am referring to this: "Copyright protection subsists .. in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression"[1]. Explanation here[2]. A specific description of a web API is certainly copyrighted (like any text), but the API it describes is not because it is not fixed. There can be many wildly different texts all describing the same web API. This is not true for library APIs, that are fixed text, just like any other code (that is not sufficient to make them copyrightable, but it is necessary). Programming languages are -- similarly to web APIs but not library APIs -- not fixed. [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 [2]: http://www.mateoaboy.com/f6/blog_files/804f4c5940fe299168ea68a195376c06-3.html http://www.mateoaboy.com/f6/blog_files/804f4c5940fe299168ea6...

orf 11y ago
> In general, no Java library works on Android except by happy coincidence Well that's just not true now is it.
- pron 11y ago
  It is true. No Java standard is supported by Android: not SE (maybe some of the new SE compact profiles, but those don't apply to Android's version of Java), not any ME profile, and not any other more obscure Java standards. If a Java library happens to only use the "Android subset" then it will work, but as that subset is not specified by any Java edition or profile, such compatibility can only be coincidental (of course, Google made sure that the libraries they thought may help their ecosystem will work, so it's not a coincidence from that perspective, but it certainly does not make their case for interoperability).
  - incepted 11y ago
    You are technically right on all these points and yet, wrong overall. See my response above [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10850585 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10850585
incepted 11y ago
> In general, no Java library works on Android except by happy coincidence This is not true at all. Every single library I have ever added in my build.gradle has always worked. Every. Single. Time. Even libraries that were compiled with Java 8, which is the most baffling thing, if you think about it (since Android doesn't support Java 8). Most of these libraries were compiled and deployed to the Maven repo by Java developers who had no idea whether their library was going to be used on Android. And yet, it does. This is no happy coincidence.
- lovelearning 11y ago
  Have you tried Apache Lucene? Java libraries that declare manifest service declarations won't work.