3 ms·

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

19 points by jor-el 10y ago

weinzierl 10y ago
> [..] Google's narrative boiled down to this: because the Java APIs have been open, any use of them was justified and all licensing restrictions should be disregarded. In other words, if you offer your software on an open and free basis, any use is fair use. Drawing this conclusion is a bit far fetched, isn't it? I there really a basis for the idea that the very specific "Oracle v. Google fair use" verdict can be applied to open source software in general?
- threatofrain 10y ago
  I'm not entirely sure, but from my reading: * There were two major questions, one was about copyrights, the other was about patents. * I think that the district court believes that names and short phrases are not copyrightable. So the court excluded API names and class and function headers from the question. So a question that was left was whether the structure / sequence / organization of API's were copyrightable. * The court doesn't hold that the structure / sequence / organization of API's are uncopyrightable, just that in Oracle's case it wasn't. * I think the jury found minor copyright violations (9 lines of copied code and tests that weren't shipped in production), and I believe Oracle and Google settled those matters for $0. As a detail, the court noted that the 9 lines of copied code was written by the same person who was employed by both Sun and Google. * So the remaining question was on patents, and the jury found that Google's implementation of code underneath API calls were original. * The court phrases legal questions for jury consideration very precisely as an itemized checklist for the foreman to tally up unanimous consensus, which is left blank if the jury deadlocks. The first jury deadlocked on the most important question of fair use, and the second jury unanimously felt that Oracle did not make its case on the structure / sequence / organization. I believe one argument about structure related to whether the structure of names (which themselves cannot be copyrighted) were due to external factors of compatibility or industry expectations.
CyberFonic 10y ago
Of course an Oracle attorney would try to put a scary spin on the decision. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that Google used the Java API documentation and re-implemented the API for Android. The Java byte-code get's translated into Dalvik environment (DEX) code. There is NO JVM, etc being used. The Java byte-code was well documented in a book back in the days when Sun owned it. Since Oracle have bought Sun, they have adopted patent troll techniques.
Joof 10y ago
GPL might lose rights over API, but it shouldn't have them in the first place and certainly never intended to.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  While it's a hyperbole the argument stems from 2 things as i can see it: The fact that Google ignored license restrictions, and the fact that Google "reworte" SUN's/Oracle's code and released it on a different license. The lawyer thinks this can be used as a precedent for other companies to violate GPL in general not just where an API is concerned and this ruling would decrease the level of protection that GPL provides making companies less likely to use it for their software.
hysan 10y ago
I don't see any explanation of how the ruling will kill the GPL in the article, just a lot of hyperbole. Reading it a second time, maybe the author is just taking a lot of logical jumps that I cannot understand. Can anyone give me a reasoned explanation of what the author is trying to say?
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  OpenJDK was available under GPL. Android took copyrighted parts of that software (the API) and released it under Apache, violating the GPL.
- threatofrain 10y ago
  The author is trying to say that Oracle is trying to say that they feel the GPL won't offer them sufficient protection, so they won't feel like using it anymore.
incompatible 10y ago
It's unfortunate that the API was judged to be copyrightable. However if Google's use of the API in a commercial product is considered to be fair use, then presumably any use of the API would be fair use, and in practice the API is therefore public domain. I suppose I'm confused by the whole thing.
- threatofrain 10y ago
  From my reading, the names used for the API weren't copyrightable because copyrights didn't cover short names and phrases, so the remaining major question was whether the structure / sequence / organization of the API is copyrightable. There was like a multi-prong framework for viewing whether use of the structure of API was fair use, and I believe one argument rested on whether the copying of that structure related to external environmental factors like industry expectations. Another important aspect of the ruling was that copyrights were not meant to enforce monopolies, but rather patents were, and on the patent question the jury found Google to have written original classes and methods underneath the API.
joshka 10y ago
Jury instructions are the interesting part of this: https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/05/26/google_oracle_jury_instructions.pdf https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/05/26/google_oracle_jury_instruc...

19 points by jor-el 10y ago

> [..] Google's narrative boiled down to this: because the Java APIs have been open, any use of them was justified and all licensing restrictions should be disregarded. In other words, if you offer your software on an open and free basis, any use is fair use. Drawing this conclusion is a bit far fetched, isn't it? I there really a basis for the idea that the very specific "Oracle v. Google fair use" verdict can be applied to open source software in general?

threatofrain 10y ago
I'm not entirely sure, but from my reading: * There were two major questions, one was about copyrights, the other was about patents. * I think that the district court believes that names and short phrases are not copyrightable. So the court excluded API names and class and function headers from the question. So a question that was left was whether the structure / sequence / organization of API's were copyrightable. * The court doesn't hold that the structure / sequence / organization of API's are uncopyrightable, just that in Oracle's case it wasn't. * I think the jury found minor copyright violations (9 lines of copied code and tests that weren't shipped in production), and I believe Oracle and Google settled those matters for $0. As a detail, the court noted that the 9 lines of copied code was written by the same person who was employed by both Sun and Google. * So the remaining question was on patents, and the jury found that Google's implementation of code underneath API calls were original. * The court phrases legal questions for jury consideration very precisely as an itemized checklist for the foreman to tally up unanimous consensus, which is left blank if the jury deadlocks. The first jury deadlocked on the most important question of fair use, and the second jury unanimously felt that Oracle did not make its case on the structure / sequence / organization. I believe one argument about structure related to whether the structure of names (which themselves cannot be copyrighted) were due to external factors of compatibility or industry expectations.

CyberFonic 10y ago

Of course an Oracle attorney would try to put a scary spin on the decision. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that Google used the Java API documentation and re-implemented the API for Android. The Java byte-code get's translated into Dalvik environment (DEX) code. There is NO JVM, etc being used. The Java byte-code was well documented in a book back in the days when Sun owned it. Since Oracle have bought Sun, they have adopted patent troll techniques.

Joof 10y ago

GPL might lose rights over API, but it shouldn't have them in the first place and certainly never intended to.

dogma1138 10y ago
While it's a hyperbole the argument stems from 2 things as i can see it: The fact that Google ignored license restrictions, and the fact that Google "reworte" SUN's/Oracle's code and released it on a different license. The lawyer thinks this can be used as a precedent for other companies to violate GPL in general not just where an API is concerned and this ruling would decrease the level of protection that GPL provides making companies less likely to use it for their software.

hysan 10y ago

I don't see any explanation of how the ruling will kill the GPL in the article, just a lot of hyperbole. Reading it a second time, maybe the author is just taking a lot of logical jumps that I cannot understand. Can anyone give me a reasoned explanation of what the author is trying to say?

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
OpenJDK was available under GPL. Android took copyrighted parts of that software (the API) and released it under Apache, violating the GPL.
threatofrain 10y ago
The author is trying to say that Oracle is trying to say that they feel the GPL won't offer them sufficient protection, so they won't feel like using it anymore.

incompatible 10y ago

It's unfortunate that the API was judged to be copyrightable. However if Google's use of the API in a commercial product is considered to be fair use, then presumably any use of the API would be fair use, and in practice the API is therefore public domain. I suppose I'm confused by the whole thing.

threatofrain 10y ago
From my reading, the names used for the API weren't copyrightable because copyrights didn't cover short names and phrases, so the remaining major question was whether the structure / sequence / organization of the API is copyrightable. There was like a multi-prong framework for viewing whether use of the structure of API was fair use, and I believe one argument rested on whether the copying of that structure related to external environmental factors like industry expectations. Another important aspect of the ruling was that copyrights were not meant to enforce monopolies, but rather patents were, and on the patent question the jury found Google to have written original classes and methods underneath the API.

joshka 10y ago

Jury instructions are the interesting part of this: https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/05/26/google_oracle_jury_instructions.pdf https://regmedia.co.uk/2016/05/26/google_oracle_jury_instruc...