4 ms·

Oracle attorney says Google’s court victory might kill the GPL

43 points by Jerry2 10y ago

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" Ahem. No, it's just your flawed legal idea that's falling. Code is still totally copyrightable, and not takeable under "fair use" (unless it's a very small amount), but using APIs is fair use. API != implementation. Is that so hard to understand?
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  Agreed. This attorney is conflating code and API, but it's not at all clear that the jury did.
- protomyth 10y ago
  Yeah, the argument presented seems to go way beyond the case, but I do have a bit of a concern. If using the API is fair use, how does this affect programs using libraries licensed under the GPL? Can a company claim fair use and not follow the GPL's restrictions on linking?
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    > If using the API is fair use, how does this affect programs using libraries licensed under the GPL? If you use the library, you're using - executing - the implementation, not just the interface. That's not covered by this case, and you can't ignore the GPL's restriction on linking. The analogy of this case would be if you kept the same function signatures of the library, but re-implemented it. Can you do that without violating the GPL? This case says "yes".
    - protomyth 10y ago
      thanks for explanation - I thought as much, but it seemed to be missing from the stories
exabrial 10y ago
I literally just spit some beer out onto the bar. Are they high? Who at Oracle comes up with this shit? Oracle is a threat to the GPL. They'll sure anyone.
grizzles 10y ago
I guess we're moving into the sour grapes stage of the litigation. I guess corporations really are people: 1. denial (tick) 2. anger (TICK) 3. bargaining (tick) 4. depression (coming soon) 5. acceptance (#NeverAccept?)
jayarcanum 10y ago
Oracle better stop fucking around. Larry's gonna learn a late lesson.
DyslexicAtheist 10y ago
apparently the GPL has only ever been challenged once in court. From "THE STORY OF BUSYBOX AND THE FIRST GPL LAWSUIT" http://torquemag.io/2013/03/busybox/ http://torquemag.io/2013/03/busybox/ quote: >Fascinating. Strangely, the BusyBox seems to have been the very first U.S. lawsuit to enforce the GPL so his statement seems to suggest that there were cases before that – I can’t seem to find any.
- ashitlerferad 10y ago
  There have been lots in Germany: http://gpl-violations.org/news/ http://gpl-violations.org/news/
- ashitlerferad 10y ago
  Also, most of the time the GPL is settled out of court because the people enforcing the GPL are only interested in compliance, not penalties. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...
aceperry 10y ago
Leave it to Oracle to continue with the FUD.
cm3 10y ago
Some more words from Annette Hurst: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-free-software-how-google-killed-gpl-annette-hurst https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-free-software-how-googl...

43 points by Jerry2 10y ago

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" Ahem. No, it's just your flawed legal idea that's falling. Code is still totally copyrightable, and not takeable under "fair use" (unless it's a very small amount), but using APIs is fair use. API != implementation. Is that so hard to understand?

Nomentatus 10y ago
Agreed. This attorney is conflating code and API, but it's not at all clear that the jury did.
protomyth 10y ago
Yeah, the argument presented seems to go way beyond the case, but I do have a bit of a concern. If using the API is fair use, how does this affect programs using libraries licensed under the GPL? Can a company claim fair use and not follow the GPL's restrictions on linking?
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  > If using the API is fair use, how does this affect programs using libraries licensed under the GPL? If you use the library, you're using - executing - the implementation, not just the interface. That's not covered by this case, and you can't ignore the GPL's restriction on linking. The analogy of this case would be if you kept the same function signatures of the library, but re-implemented it. Can you do that without violating the GPL? This case says "yes".
  - protomyth 10y ago
    thanks for explanation - I thought as much, but it seemed to be missing from the stories

exabrial 10y ago

I literally just spit some beer out onto the bar. Are they high? Who at Oracle comes up with this shit? Oracle is a threat to the GPL. They'll sure anyone.

grizzles 10y ago

I guess we're moving into the sour grapes stage of the litigation. I guess corporations really are people: 1. denial (tick) 2. anger (TICK) 3. bargaining (tick) 4. depression (coming soon) 5. acceptance (#NeverAccept?)

jayarcanum 10y ago

Oracle better stop fucking around. Larry's gonna learn a late lesson.

DyslexicAtheist 10y ago

apparently the GPL has only ever been challenged once in court. From "THE STORY OF BUSYBOX AND THE FIRST GPL LAWSUIT" http://torquemag.io/2013/03/busybox/ http://torquemag.io/2013/03/busybox/ quote: >Fascinating. Strangely, the BusyBox seems to have been the very first U.S. lawsuit to enforce the GPL so his statement seems to suggest that there were cases before that – I can’t seem to find any.

ashitlerferad 10y ago
There have been lots in Germany: http://gpl-violations.org/news/ http://gpl-violations.org/news/
ashitlerferad 10y ago
Also, most of the time the GPL is settled out of court because the people enforcing the GPL are only interested in compliance, not penalties. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...

aceperry 10y ago

Leave it to Oracle to continue with the FUD.

cm3 10y ago

Some more words from Annette Hurst: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-free-software-how-google-killed-gpl-annette-hurst https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-free-software-how-googl...