4 ms·

This whole thing is unbelievable to me. We have Oracle spending who knows how much money suing Google and claiming that APIs are copyrightable. At the same time

This whole thing is unbelievable to me. We have Oracle spending who knows how much money suing Google and claiming that APIs are copyrightable. At the same time they, along with virtually every software company ever, rely on documented, standardized, ubiquitous protocols like IP, TCP/IP, and HTTP to create software that does anything useful. Even the most basic notepad or calculator application relies on APIs to function. I cannot imagine a world that forces us to treat every use of an API as a must-be-legally-contracted integration. Even the most trivial applications would never get completed because the cost just to agree to all these contracts would exceed any ability to generate profit from the resulting software. If Oracle wins then in a way this might actually be good for open source; software developers would seek out the path of least resistance: APIs that could be licensed freely. This could simply extend the push of open source code further to APIs.

curt15 11y ago
It's ironic that one of Oracle's core products (https://www.oracle.com/linux/operating-system/index.html https://www.oracle.com/linux/operating-system/index.html) was created by the very practice that they are trying to outlaw, as an independent implementation of proprietary software (belonging to AT&T).
- WildUtah 11y ago
  Oracle's core product is Oracle database. That is a product based on SQL, an API language invented by IBM's Codd, Boyce, and Chamberlin in 1970-1974. Oracle developed Oracle database before IBM offered standardized free royalty-free licensing, so Oracle's core product, according to Oracle's legal theory, belongs to IBM.
ktRolster 11y ago
There's a strong fair use defense for interoperability (Sony v Connectix). In the hypothetical situation that someone claimed copyright on TCP/IP, presumably that would be a strong enough defense. Google is in difficulty here because they didn't use Java for purposes of interoperability; their version isn't even compatible. If they had, Oracle would have no case. The appeals court left open the question of whether Java being easier for developers because they already know Java counts as a fair use defense. It might count, and then Google is free. If Oracle wins then in a way this might actually be good for open source; software developers would seek out the path of least resistance: APIs that could be licensed freely. That is why the FSF supported Oracle before the supreme court.
- jkn 11y ago
  It's quite a stretch to say that the FSF supported Oracle before the Supreme Court. Also you seem to think that the FSF supports API copyrightability as a means of making free software more attractive to developers. This is not at all their position. Here is what they said at the time of the Jury verdict in the first trial[1]: Were it grounded in reality, Oracle's claim that copyright law gives them proprietary control over any software that uses a particular functional API would be terrible for free software and programmers everywhere. It is an unethical and greedy interpretation created with the express purpose of subjugating as many computer users as possible, and is particularly bad in this context because it comes at a time when the sun has barely set on the free software community's celebration of Java as a language newly suitable for use in the free world. Fortunately, the claim is not yet reality, and we hope Judge Alsup will keep it that way. As for their brief against Google's petition to the Supreme Court[2]: SFLC and FSF take the position that the decision below is wrong, but that certiorari should not be granted for three reasons: (1) the decision of the Federal Circuit merely mispredicts what the Ninth Circuit would do if it had been the Court resolving Oracle's appeal from the District Court's finding that the application program interface declarations at issue are non-copyrightable; (2) the decision rests on narrow factual grounds; and (3) there is no public interest in continuing to adjudicate this dispute because Google can now and could have used all material at issue under the terms of the GNU GPL v2. What to make of this? It's a bit convoluted. On the general issue of proprietary APIs, the FSF supports Google's position. But they think the judgement against Google from the Federal Circuit court carries virtually no value as precedent, as they say in their brief[3]: Despite the manifestly erroneous character of the decision below, the petition for writ of certiorari should not be granted. The precedential weight of a decision so evidently mispredicting the law of another Circuit is essentially nil. Now independently of the Oracle v. Google dispute, they would prefer if Google were using the GPL license for Android. Wouldn't it be nice if the bad Federal Circuit judgment could incentivize Google to use the GPL, without affecting other cases? I think that is the tactical advantage the FSF saw in opposing Google's petition to the Supreme Court. And it might have been a good call, as Google is indeed switching to the GPL Java implementation[4]. [1] https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-statement-on-jurys-partial-verdict-in-oracle-v-google https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-statement-on-jurys-partial-verd... [2] https://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2014/dec/08/sflc-files-against-scotus-cert-google_v_oracle/ https://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2014/dec/08/sflc-files-... [3] https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/google_v_oracle-sflc_cert_amicus.html https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/google_v_orac... [4] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/android-n-switches-to-openjdk-google-tells-oracle-it-is-protected-by-the-gpl/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/android-n-switche...

curt15 11y ago

It's ironic that one of Oracle's core products (https://www.oracle.com/linux/operating-system/index.html https://www.oracle.com/linux/operating-system/index.html) was created by the very practice that they are trying to outlaw, as an independent implementation of proprietary software (belonging to AT&T).

WildUtah 11y ago
Oracle's core product is Oracle database. That is a product based on SQL, an API language invented by IBM's Codd, Boyce, and Chamberlin in 1970-1974. Oracle developed Oracle database before IBM offered standardized free royalty-free licensing, so Oracle's core product, according to Oracle's legal theory, belongs to IBM.

ktRolster 11y ago

There's a strong fair use defense for interoperability (Sony v Connectix). In the hypothetical situation that someone claimed copyright on TCP/IP, presumably that would be a strong enough defense. Google is in difficulty here because they didn't use Java for purposes of interoperability; their version isn't even compatible. If they had, Oracle would have no case. The appeals court left open the question of whether Java being easier for developers because they already know Java counts as a fair use defense. It might count, and then Google is free. If Oracle wins then in a way this might actually be good for open source; software developers would seek out the path of least resistance: APIs that could be licensed freely. That is why the FSF supported Oracle before the supreme court.

jkn 11y ago
It's quite a stretch to say that the FSF supported Oracle before the Supreme Court. Also you seem to think that the FSF supports API copyrightability as a means of making free software more attractive to developers. This is not at all their position. Here is what they said at the time of the Jury verdict in the first trial[1]: Were it grounded in reality, Oracle's claim that copyright law gives them proprietary control over any software that uses a particular functional API would be terrible for free software and programmers everywhere. It is an unethical and greedy interpretation created with the express purpose of subjugating as many computer users as possible, and is particularly bad in this context because it comes at a time when the sun has barely set on the free software community's celebration of Java as a language newly suitable for use in the free world. Fortunately, the claim is not yet reality, and we hope Judge Alsup will keep it that way. As for their brief against Google's petition to the Supreme Court[2]: SFLC and FSF take the position that the decision below is wrong, but that certiorari should not be granted for three reasons: (1) the decision of the Federal Circuit merely mispredicts what the Ninth Circuit would do if it had been the Court resolving Oracle's appeal from the District Court's finding that the application program interface declarations at issue are non-copyrightable; (2) the decision rests on narrow factual grounds; and (3) there is no public interest in continuing to adjudicate this dispute because Google can now and could have used all material at issue under the terms of the GNU GPL v2. What to make of this? It's a bit convoluted. On the general issue of proprietary APIs, the FSF supports Google's position. But they think the judgement against Google from the Federal Circuit court carries virtually no value as precedent, as they say in their brief[3]: Despite the manifestly erroneous character of the decision below, the petition for writ of certiorari should not be granted. The precedential weight of a decision so evidently mispredicting the law of another Circuit is essentially nil. Now independently of the Oracle v. Google dispute, they would prefer if Google were using the GPL license for Android. Wouldn't it be nice if the bad Federal Circuit judgment could incentivize Google to use the GPL, without affecting other cases? I think that is the tactical advantage the FSF saw in opposing Google's petition to the Supreme Court. And it might have been a good call, as Google is indeed switching to the GPL Java implementation[4]. [1] https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-statement-on-jurys-partial-verdict-in-oracle-v-google https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-statement-on-jurys-partial-verd... [2] https://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2014/dec/08/sflc-files-against-scotus-cert-google_v_oracle/ https://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2014/dec/08/sflc-files-... [3] https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/google_v_oracle-sflc_cert_amicus.html https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2014/google_v_orac... [4] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/android-n-switches-to-openjdk-google-tells-oracle-it-is-protected-by-the-gpl/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/android-n-switche...