3 ms·

I agree that API documents (say, interface code and it's documentation) are works that fall under copyright. This case is more about fair use. Is Google's usa

I agree that API documents (say, interface code and it's documentation) are works that fall under copyright. This case is more about fair use. Is Google's usage of the Java APIs fair use, or a copyright infringement?

mikekchar 10y ago
This is a very common misunderstanding of fair use. Fair use is copyright infringement. It's just a legal defence when you are being sued. This is one of the big problems with fair use in the US. If you intend to use a fair use defence, you will almost certainly go to court. You will not get a summary judgement of "Oh that's obviously fair use, so we don't have to have a trial". This means you will have to pay a lot of money for a lawyer. Having said that, IANAL and I could easily be wrong. This is not legal advice. The real question (which seems already to have been answered) is are APIs a copywritable work, and if so is an implementation that follows the API a derived work? So is it an infringement if I simply implement the API? The original court decision said it is not an infringement, the appeal said it is and the supreme court decided not to hear a further appeal. That's why we are left with a fair use defence. This is quite spectacularly bad for the industry IMHO, but there is not much we can do about it now other than to have US citizens lobby congress to pass a new copyright law (which seems pretty unlikely). If it turns out to be fair use, that will make it slightly less bad. However, expect rent-seekers to start coming out of the woodwork to sue for implementations of specifications anyway. They know that they can simply sue you for less money than it will cost to defend yourself with a fair use defence. Expect this to be the new patent troll.
- BuckRogers 10y ago
  Wouldn't an Oracle win be good for Free Software? Google isn't the good guy here, they wanted to create derivative work without GPL'ing it. Which they considered a "virus" and "infectious". I see companies like Google trying to have their cake and eat it too. Everyone wants to lean on someone elses work but not use GPL or license their own as such. It's only bad for the industry as it exists today. Tomorrow hopefully when Oracle wins this as it appears to be a slam dunk, libre software becomes the norm rather than the Frankenstein's monster that Android is. I would either do it all in-house as Apple did with iOS or if you want to create a derivative work, use GPL'd code. Google didn't want to do the hard, time consuming work of API design. If it was the easy part, why didn't they do it? Open and shut case in favor of Oracle. And after a rough adjustment period, I think it will promote Free Software to new heights industry-wide when they win.
  - mikekchar 10y ago
    Not in my opinion. The GPL is a license that depends on accepting the license -- or not. It is always acceptable not to accept the license and write your own. That's part of software freedom. In fact this judgement puts GNU Classpath in a very tenuous position because their code is also not based on the the GPLed version of Java (having been written before Java was GPLed). Even GNU is now in jeopardy because who the heck owns the copyright for POSIX??? Is there any license language in the specification saying that you can implement it? I have been too scared to look up until now. This is incredibly important because all of the GNU tools and the Linux kernel have been implemented independently and are not derivations of things like BSD. No. This is a nightmare for free software because it means that every single RFC in existence now needs a license thanks to copyright lasting for the life of the author plus 95 years. It means that we can never interoperate with services that choose not to grant a license to their API. Even if you reverse engineer it, expect a lawsuit having to defend yourself using a fair use defence. And if you live in most of the world that doesn't have fair use. Well, you are just screwed. The only thing this means is that free software will be marginalized. We'll be set back 20 years.
    - BuckRogers 10y ago
      We disagree overall. In sum, I think it's a distinct possibility free software wins with an Oracle victory. Your position is that everything is fine and dandy today. I disagree because otherwise this wouldn't be in court. There are legitimate issues that need resolved, neither Google or Oracle are good guys. Google created their own problem trying to cut corners/save money and it backfired. They admitted in their emails it was a risk and they went for it. But I did want to clarify one thing you said because I found it confusing. > The GPL is a license that depends on accepting the license -- or not. It is always acceptable not to accept the license and write your own. If you do use GPL code you have to also license it as GPL. Any derivative work you create containing even a smallest portion of the previously GPL licensed software must also be licensed under the GPL license. That's what Google meant when they called it infectious and viral. Unfortunately for these large corporations, it was also the solution (other than doing the heavy lifting in-house as Apple did). When you don't accept GPL'd code, you write your own code and license (or adopt another).

mikekchar 10y ago

This is a very common misunderstanding of fair use. Fair use is copyright infringement. It's just a legal defence when you are being sued. This is one of the big problems with fair use in the US. If you intend to use a fair use defence, you will almost certainly go to court. You will not get a summary judgement of "Oh that's obviously fair use, so we don't have to have a trial". This means you will have to pay a lot of money for a lawyer. Having said that, IANAL and I could easily be wrong. This is not legal advice. The real question (which seems already to have been answered) is are APIs a copywritable work, and if so is an implementation that follows the API a derived work? So is it an infringement if I simply implement the API? The original court decision said it is not an infringement, the appeal said it is and the supreme court decided not to hear a further appeal. That's why we are left with a fair use defence. This is quite spectacularly bad for the industry IMHO, but there is not much we can do about it now other than to have US citizens lobby congress to pass a new copyright law (which seems pretty unlikely). If it turns out to be fair use, that will make it slightly less bad. However, expect rent-seekers to start coming out of the woodwork to sue for implementations of specifications anyway. They know that they can simply sue you for less money than it will cost to defend yourself with a fair use defence. Expect this to be the new patent troll.

BuckRogers 10y ago
Wouldn't an Oracle win be good for Free Software? Google isn't the good guy here, they wanted to create derivative work without GPL'ing it. Which they considered a "virus" and "infectious". I see companies like Google trying to have their cake and eat it too. Everyone wants to lean on someone elses work but not use GPL or license their own as such. It's only bad for the industry as it exists today. Tomorrow hopefully when Oracle wins this as it appears to be a slam dunk, libre software becomes the norm rather than the Frankenstein's monster that Android is. I would either do it all in-house as Apple did with iOS or if you want to create a derivative work, use GPL'd code. Google didn't want to do the hard, time consuming work of API design. If it was the easy part, why didn't they do it? Open and shut case in favor of Oracle. And after a rough adjustment period, I think it will promote Free Software to new heights industry-wide when they win.
- mikekchar 10y ago
  Not in my opinion. The GPL is a license that depends on accepting the license -- or not. It is always acceptable not to accept the license and write your own. That's part of software freedom. In fact this judgement puts GNU Classpath in a very tenuous position because their code is also not based on the the GPLed version of Java (having been written before Java was GPLed). Even GNU is now in jeopardy because who the heck owns the copyright for POSIX??? Is there any license language in the specification saying that you can implement it? I have been too scared to look up until now. This is incredibly important because all of the GNU tools and the Linux kernel have been implemented independently and are not derivations of things like BSD. No. This is a nightmare for free software because it means that every single RFC in existence now needs a license thanks to copyright lasting for the life of the author plus 95 years. It means that we can never interoperate with services that choose not to grant a license to their API. Even if you reverse engineer it, expect a lawsuit having to defend yourself using a fair use defence. And if you live in most of the world that doesn't have fair use. Well, you are just screwed. The only thing this means is that free software will be marginalized. We'll be set back 20 years.
  - BuckRogers 10y ago
    We disagree overall. In sum, I think it's a distinct possibility free software wins with an Oracle victory. Your position is that everything is fine and dandy today. I disagree because otherwise this wouldn't be in court. There are legitimate issues that need resolved, neither Google or Oracle are good guys. Google created their own problem trying to cut corners/save money and it backfired. They admitted in their emails it was a risk and they went for it. But I did want to clarify one thing you said because I found it confusing. > The GPL is a license that depends on accepting the license -- or not. It is always acceptable not to accept the license and write your own. If you do use GPL code you have to also license it as GPL. Any derivative work you create containing even a smallest portion of the previously GPL licensed software must also be licensed under the GPL license. That's what Google meant when they called it infectious and viral. Unfortunately for these large corporations, it was also the solution (other than doing the heavy lifting in-house as Apple did). When you don't accept GPL'd code, you write your own code and license (or adopt another).