4 ms·
When using Java, use is subject to Oracle Binary Code License Agreement (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license/index.html http://www.oracl
by 0x4a6f6579 11y ago
When using Java, use is subject to Oracle Binary Code License Agreement (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license/index.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/terms/license/...). In this license use and distribution of the JRE & JDK are granted except for a few particular situations, outlined in various sections of the license.
Simply the act of "develop[ing] Java apps" falls entirely within a fair interpretation of the license. The difference is best understood in the Solicitor General's Brief (pg. 5 http://www.scribd.com/doc/266703948/Goog-v-Oracle-Solicitor-General-Brief-Copy http://www.scribd.com/doc/266703948/Goog-v-Oracle-Solicitor-...):
Although a Java programmer is free to write new code from scratch without relying on prewritten methods, the Java Standard Library provides convenient building blocks for writing computer programs.
Although respondent [Oracle] does not claim a copyright interest in the Java language itself, respondent owns a copyright in the Java Standard Library. Pet App. 7. Respondent makes the Java Standard Library available to computer programmers under any of three copyright licenses, including a conditional royalty-free license. See id. at 7-8.
On page 7: Petitioner [Google] assets that it copied the declaring code so that programmers familiar with the Java platform would be able to switch over to the Android platform without having to learn entirely new commands for invoking commonly used methods.
In total, petitioner copied approximately 7000 lines of declaring code.
Herein lies the core issue -- Google did not have a prearranged license agreement to copy the declaring code of Java's standard library, and in doing so infringed on the copyright by using it in their own platform.
Section F of the Oracle Binary Code License reads JAVA TECHNOLOGY RESTRICTIONS. You may not create, modify, or change the behavior of, or authorize your licensees to create, modify, or change the behavior of, classes, interfaces, or subpackages that are in any way identified as "java", "javax", "sun", “oracle” or similar convention as specified by Oracle in any naming convention designation.
tldr; Consider a painting created by an artist. A photographer comes along and thinks, "great painting!" and snaps a photo. If the photographer goes on to distribute and replicate the photograph of this painting (without an agreement with the artist) and earns a profit, the photographer has infringed on the artist's copyright.
- mjevans 11y agoAn API is not a painting. It is a set of facts.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- 0x4a6f6579 11y agoIt is true an API is not a painting, but this is not a claim I made. The API specified in these legal matters is work product created on behalf of a legal entity who has a claim to its copyright that is legally filed and maintained. Both Google and Oracle agree on that fact according to the document I linked. If you still disagree, take it up with those parties.
- lsaferite 11y agoSeems more like the photographer saw the painting, found the composition pleasing, then recreated that composition in real life for a photo.
- hammock 11y agoTry a different example, because art appropriation is pretty well-developed. http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/30/8691257/richard-prince-instagram-photos-copyright-law-fair-use http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/30/8691257/richard-prince-ins...
- 0x4a6f6579 11y agoTake your own advice, that article concludes with "Patent and copyright attorney John Arsenault told Fstoppers that New Portraits, although it looks like a case of outright plagiarism, might be a little more complex if it were argued in a legal context." Meaning it is (or was) not, at the time the issue arose. Additionally, in a legal context it is "more complex" because the artist marketed these as vignettes of his Instagram feed. To prove copyright infringement, one would establish copyright ownership of the artist's feed. Who own's a particular user's Instagram feed -- the user, Instagram, or is it shared copyright of all entities listed within the feed? To enforce copyright the latter would need to be true since the artwork is marketed as part of a social media feed.