3 ms·

Nope. Not sure where you're getting that from.

nl 10y ago
Samba is API compatible with Windows file server. Unless you are arguing that network protocol compatibility is a different thing? It seems to me that there is a lot of overlap, since Samba relies on re implementing the same behavior as a Windows file server.
- rayiner 10y ago
  Copyright doesn't care about the software's behavior, just the text and structure of the code. Samba implemented CIFS without looking at or copying any Microsoft code.
  - zaroth 10y ago
    This is such a key point and yet also quite confusing. Obviously copyright is not patents. Copyright is about preventing literal copying of someone's creation. So.., if you implement an API in a different programming language, such that the text and structure is different, and yet the function remains the same... then have you not infringed any copyright?
    - true_religion 10y ago
      Copyright is about literal reuse of someones functional product, not about reuse of the abstract ideas that make up it. To me an API, is just a formalization of declaring your intention to implement a particular functionality.
      - monocasa 10y ago
        That basically used to be true, but this trial was over the "sequence, structure, and organization" of the API.
  - curt15 10y ago
    Reverse engineering is not a defense against infringement if the subject of reverse engineering is copyright-protected.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      It generally is. That's the whole point of clean-room reimplementation. You have one set of engineers that reverse engineers a product to develop a spec, and another set that implements the same functionality from the spec. That's kosher and has been upheld in several court cases. The trouble for doing that with Java APIs is the spec basically is the class declarations. You don't just need to "do the same thing" you need a tangible source file that has at least in part the same text.
    - PeterisP 10y ago
      It kind of depends - in some jurisdictions, for example, interoperability requirements is a sufficient defense against copyright infringement, i.e., if you've built your product so that interoperating with it requires [re]using copyrighted parts, then it's okay to do so (up to the extent required for interoperability) even if you explicitly forbid it. Sane laws such as that automatically prevent issues such as this Java API dispute and also things such as the attempts to block interoperability for coffee machine "pods" by requiring a copyrighted magic string and using DMCA to prevent others from using it.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    How can you copy an API without looking at the original API? They might not have looked the implementation, but if the API itself is copyrighted, won't looking at it suffice to be infringement?
  - nl 10y ago
    If there is one thing I've learnt for sure from all the random forum posts used in this trial, it is that "IANAL" is a good thing to say! Nonetheless, I don't think the clean-roomness or otherwise of an implementation has an impact on this. Otherwise someone could copy music by listening to it and replaying it. Like you said: the copyright is on the text, pattern and structure of the code. But it doesn't matter how it was replicated.
- jra_samba 10y ago
  Samba uses NO Windows APIs. Please learn the difference between an API and a network protocol, else you end up looking foolish. https://www.samba.org/ftp/tridge/misc/french_cafe.txt https://www.samba.org/ftp/tridge/misc/french_cafe.txt
  - nl 10y ago
    Please learn the difference between an API and a network protocol, else you end up looking foolish. I don't believe that the distinction is that clear at all. Hence my comment: Unless you are arguing that network protocol compatibility is a different thing? It seems to me that there is a lot of overlap, since Samba relies on re implementing the same behavior as a Windows file server. I think it is pretty easy to argue that the pattern of network calls needed to make calls (eg authentication) is an API. Is a WSDL SOAP definition an API? I think most would say yes. A REST endpoint and the definition of how to use it? Why exactly is the definition of the HTTP protocol different to the definition of the REST endpoint? IANAL, etc. Which seems important these days.
    - jra_samba 10y ago
      A linearized network protocol is not an API. That distinction is very clear. Read the Microsoft protocol specs. They say nothing about API's used to send/receive the protocol - only how the protocol elements are encoded on the wire. The API's that Samba uses to access that protocol are nothing like the Windows API calls (and are a completely independent implementation).
      - nl 10y ago
        I don't disagree at all! I'm just pointing out that it isn't at all clear to me that the strong distinction that software people see between APIs and protocols is as clear under law.
  - monocasa 10y ago
    It's not nearly as cut and dry as you're making it. Wiki of all places defines 'API' to be broad enough to include network wire protocols and endpoints. This trial was over "sequence, structure, and organization" rather than literal copying. And of course Samba isn't built of WIN32 APIs, that's not what we're talking about.

nl 10y ago

Samba is API compatible with Windows file server. Unless you are arguing that network protocol compatibility is a different thing? It seems to me that there is a lot of overlap, since Samba relies on re implementing the same behavior as a Windows file server.

rayiner 10y ago
Copyright doesn't care about the software's behavior, just the text and structure of the code. Samba implemented CIFS without looking at or copying any Microsoft code.
- zaroth 10y ago
  This is such a key point and yet also quite confusing. Obviously copyright is not patents. Copyright is about preventing literal copying of someone's creation. So.., if you implement an API in a different programming language, such that the text and structure is different, and yet the function remains the same... then have you not infringed any copyright?
  - true_religion 10y ago
    Copyright is about literal reuse of someones functional product, not about reuse of the abstract ideas that make up it. To me an API, is just a formalization of declaring your intention to implement a particular functionality.
    - monocasa 10y ago
      That basically used to be true, but this trial was over the "sequence, structure, and organization" of the API.
- curt15 10y ago
  Reverse engineering is not a defense against infringement if the subject of reverse engineering is copyright-protected.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    It generally is. That's the whole point of clean-room reimplementation. You have one set of engineers that reverse engineers a product to develop a spec, and another set that implements the same functionality from the spec. That's kosher and has been upheld in several court cases. The trouble for doing that with Java APIs is the spec basically is the class declarations. You don't just need to "do the same thing" you need a tangible source file that has at least in part the same text.
  - PeterisP 10y ago
    It kind of depends - in some jurisdictions, for example, interoperability requirements is a sufficient defense against copyright infringement, i.e., if you've built your product so that interoperating with it requires [re]using copyrighted parts, then it's okay to do so (up to the extent required for interoperability) even if you explicitly forbid it. Sane laws such as that automatically prevent issues such as this Java API dispute and also things such as the attempts to block interoperability for coffee machine "pods" by requiring a copyrighted magic string and using DMCA to prevent others from using it.
- icebraining 10y ago
  How can you copy an API without looking at the original API? They might not have looked the implementation, but if the API itself is copyrighted, won't looking at it suffice to be infringement?
- nl 10y ago
  If there is one thing I've learnt for sure from all the random forum posts used in this trial, it is that "IANAL" is a good thing to say! Nonetheless, I don't think the clean-roomness or otherwise of an implementation has an impact on this. Otherwise someone could copy music by listening to it and replaying it. Like you said: the copyright is on the text, pattern and structure of the code. But it doesn't matter how it was replicated.
jra_samba 10y ago
Samba uses NO Windows APIs. Please learn the difference between an API and a network protocol, else you end up looking foolish. https://www.samba.org/ftp/tridge/misc/french_cafe.txt https://www.samba.org/ftp/tridge/misc/french_cafe.txt
- nl 10y ago
  Please learn the difference between an API and a network protocol, else you end up looking foolish. I don't believe that the distinction is that clear at all. Hence my comment: Unless you are arguing that network protocol compatibility is a different thing? It seems to me that there is a lot of overlap, since Samba relies on re implementing the same behavior as a Windows file server. I think it is pretty easy to argue that the pattern of network calls needed to make calls (eg authentication) is an API. Is a WSDL SOAP definition an API? I think most would say yes. A REST endpoint and the definition of how to use it? Why exactly is the definition of the HTTP protocol different to the definition of the REST endpoint? IANAL, etc. Which seems important these days.
  - jra_samba 10y ago
    A linearized network protocol is not an API. That distinction is very clear. Read the Microsoft protocol specs. They say nothing about API's used to send/receive the protocol - only how the protocol elements are encoded on the wire. The API's that Samba uses to access that protocol are nothing like the Windows API calls (and are a completely independent implementation).
    - nl 10y ago
      I don't disagree at all! I'm just pointing out that it isn't at all clear to me that the strong distinction that software people see between APIs and protocols is as clear under law.
- monocasa 10y ago
  It's not nearly as cut and dry as you're making it. Wiki of all places defines 'API' to be broad enough to include network wire protocols and endpoints. This trial was over "sequence, structure, and organization" rather than literal copying. And of course Samba isn't built of WIN32 APIs, that's not what we're talking about.