38 ms·

How many projects would be affected if the Supreme Court sides with Oracle and rules that APIs can't be reimplemented? Java is open source, but copyright is re

How many projects would be affected if the Supreme Court sides with Oracle and rules that APIs can't be reimplemented? Java is open source, but copyright is retained by Oracle. Would this affect say, Amazon's ability to rip off the MongoDB API? What about open source x86 emulators? (Intel IP) Hercules IBM emulator? Any of the Nintendo, SNES etc game emulators?

throw_away2 8y ago
Or, say, an S3 compatibility layer for your cloud storage system: https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/iaas/Content/Object/Tasks/s3compatibleapi.htm https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/iaas/Content/Object/Tasks/s3co... I'm not surprised by Oracle's hypocrisy. I'm surprised anyone with a soul and functioning sense of right and wrong still works there.
- colejohnson66 8y ago
  If Oracle succeeds and Amazon proceeds to sue Oracle for that, that would be some sweet schadenfreude. Granted, I’d still be pissed at the decision, but to have Oracle’s tactics used back at them would feel really nice.
  - PetahNZ 8y ago
    Oracle would just sue them back for Aurora's MySQL compatibility. If not sue them first.
    - monocasa 8y ago
      If anyone owns the base copyright to SQL, it's IBM.
    - jhall1468 8y ago
      They'd lose for the very same reason that Android is within the confines of the law via the Android Runtime. Dalvik violated the Java license, Android Runtime isn't. Aurora's compatibility layer isn't violating the MySQL license either.
      - wtallis 8y ago
        > Dalvik violated the Java license, Android Runtime isn't. Can you elaborate on this point? What license for what copyrightable work did Dalvik violate, and why does Android Runtime not violate that same copyright license?
        jhall1468 8y ago
        The issue at hand was licensing. In the Android Runtime, Google is linking to the OpenJDK libraries rather than using it's "reverse engineered" runtime. OpenJDK is GPL with a classpath exception, which Google is utilizing. The caveat for Google is any changes to the OpenJDK itself has to be upstreamed. But the Android Runtime itself doesn't have to be GPL due to the classpath exception. In all honesty, this is how they should have done it in the first place.
        wtallis 8y ago
        That sounds more like an allegation that Dalvik was lacking a required license from Oracle, not that it was violating any existing license.
        jhall1468 8y ago
        It was violating the open source license, thus required a commercial license, which it didn't have, which in turn makes this copyright infringement. At least that's the position of the courts so far.
- jf 8y ago
  I recently heard of an satanist who got a job at Oracle. The satanist would say he worked for the devil
throwaway67215 8y ago
IANAL, this is not legal advice. Linux and OS X implement the same APIs as Unix. Windows implements the same (or very similar) APIs as PM in OS/2. Most modern PCs reimplement the IBM PC "API", hence "PC compatible". > In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. (—Copyright Law of the United States[2]) APIs are the idea that binds components together. Even if you come to understand the interface by reading a programmatic description of it (e.g., a function signature), and reimplement it, and your language forces you to use the same exact wording to match the signature (b/c it's an API), there's nothing different here than the same exception given to the way that a the raw listing of ingredients in a recipe is not copyrightable (and this is called out as an example of such by copyright.gov[1]). The appellate court erred in its application of the law. Additionally, this was said on one of the amicus briefs, > reversing the District Court would dangerously undermine the settled expectations of computer scientists and the entire computer industry that rely upon the open nature of APIs (—Martin Fowler, Bruce Schneier, Bjarne Stroustrup, et al. were signatories to this amicus brief.) The decision, were the industry to actually pay attention to it, would wreak havoc on the state of software engineering. [1]: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf [2]: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf
- scarface74 8y ago
  Linux and OS X implement the same APIs as Unix. Windows implements the same (or very similar) APIs as PM in OS/2. OS X doesn’t just implement the same APIs as Unix, OS X is certified Unix by the Open Group.
  - wtallis 8y ago
    That just means that Apple's implementation is allowed to use the Unix trademark. It really doesn't add much of anything to the copyright discussion, especially since The Open Group doesn't own Unix copyrights, just the trademark.
abrookewood 8y ago
Yes, if this decision doesn't go Googles way, all hell is going to break lose: WINE, Samba, S3 compatability, Amazon DocumentDB. The list is enormous and frankly, everyone loses somewhere. It's a complete nightmare.
- cwyers 8y ago
  Remember, if Oracle wins, they are not pursuing a ruling that obviates the doctrine of fair use; all of those cover the case of implementing an API for compatibility. Oracle's argument about Android and its use of Java is that Android did not run Java apps; it ran Java code, but it did not implement enough of the Java API surface to let you run Java apps unmodified. You could use existing Java code in new, Android-only apps that couldn't run on Sun/Oracle's JVM. Therefore, Oracle's argument is that the fair use doctrine does not apply here; that Android is a derivative work of Java, which is not fair use. WINE, for example, is not ruled impermissible by the sort of ruling Oracle seeks.
  - throwaway67215 8y ago
    I agree that Oracle isn't trying to create a ruling that obviates fair use; but assume you believe that the appellate court's ruling is correct, and APIs are copyrightable, how does fair use cover implementing an API for compatibility? > Oracle's argument about Android and its use of Java is that Android did not run Java apps; it ran Java code, but it did not implement enough of the Java API surface to let you run Java apps unmodified. So what? Partial compatibility is still meaningful in software engineering, and should allow libraries to run on both. Are you saying that if Google had fully implemented all of the Java APIs, it would have been fair use? Further, can you ground the above reasoning (that fair use covers API copying, and that Google's partial implementation is material here) in the actual rulings for the case? I don't remember any of this from when I read them, though I do admit that was some time ago. > WINE, for example, is not ruled impermissible by the sort of ruling Oracle seeks. Why not? Simply because you cannot write a .exe that would run in WINE, but not in Windows? Further, what if the example was instead Linux? Linux implements Unix's APIs, but also adds other APIs. You can use existing "Unix" code in new, Linux-only apps that won't run on other *nix OSs.

throw_away2 8y ago

Or, say, an S3 compatibility layer for your cloud storage system: https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/iaas/Content/Object/Tasks/s3compatibleapi.htm https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/iaas/Content/Object/Tasks/s3co... I'm not surprised by Oracle's hypocrisy. I'm surprised anyone with a soul and functioning sense of right and wrong still works there.

colejohnson66 8y ago
If Oracle succeeds and Amazon proceeds to sue Oracle for that, that would be some sweet schadenfreude. Granted, I’d still be pissed at the decision, but to have Oracle’s tactics used back at them would feel really nice.
- PetahNZ 8y ago
  Oracle would just sue them back for Aurora's MySQL compatibility. If not sue them first.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    If anyone owns the base copyright to SQL, it's IBM.
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    They'd lose for the very same reason that Android is within the confines of the law via the Android Runtime. Dalvik violated the Java license, Android Runtime isn't. Aurora's compatibility layer isn't violating the MySQL license either.
    - wtallis 8y ago
      > Dalvik violated the Java license, Android Runtime isn't. Can you elaborate on this point? What license for what copyrightable work did Dalvik violate, and why does Android Runtime not violate that same copyright license?
      - jhall1468 8y ago
        The issue at hand was licensing. In the Android Runtime, Google is linking to the OpenJDK libraries rather than using it's "reverse engineered" runtime. OpenJDK is GPL with a classpath exception, which Google is utilizing. The caveat for Google is any changes to the OpenJDK itself has to be upstreamed. But the Android Runtime itself doesn't have to be GPL due to the classpath exception. In all honesty, this is how they should have done it in the first place.
        wtallis 8y ago
        That sounds more like an allegation that Dalvik was lacking a required license from Oracle, not that it was violating any existing license.
        jhall1468 8y ago
        It was violating the open source license, thus required a commercial license, which it didn't have, which in turn makes this copyright infringement. At least that's the position of the courts so far.
jf 8y ago
I recently heard of an satanist who got a job at Oracle. The satanist would say he worked for the devil

throwaway67215 8y ago

IANAL, this is not legal advice. Linux and OS X implement the same APIs as Unix. Windows implements the same (or very similar) APIs as PM in OS/2. Most modern PCs reimplement the IBM PC "API", hence "PC compatible". > In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. (—Copyright Law of the United States[2]) APIs are the idea that binds components together. Even if you come to understand the interface by reading a programmatic description of it (e.g., a function signature), and reimplement it, and your language forces you to use the same exact wording to match the signature (b/c it's an API), there's nothing different here than the same exception given to the way that a the raw listing of ingredients in a recipe is not copyrightable (and this is called out as an example of such by copyright.gov[1]). The appellate court erred in its application of the law. Additionally, this was said on one of the amicus briefs, > reversing the District Court would dangerously undermine the settled expectations of computer scientists and the entire computer industry that rely upon the open nature of APIs (—Martin Fowler, Bruce Schneier, Bjarne Stroustrup, et al. were signatories to this amicus brief.) The decision, were the industry to actually pay attention to it, would wreak havoc on the state of software engineering. [1]: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf [2]: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/title17/title17.pdf

scarface74 8y ago
Linux and OS X implement the same APIs as Unix. Windows implements the same (or very similar) APIs as PM in OS/2. OS X doesn’t just implement the same APIs as Unix, OS X is certified Unix by the Open Group.
- wtallis 8y ago
  That just means that Apple's implementation is allowed to use the Unix trademark. It really doesn't add much of anything to the copyright discussion, especially since The Open Group doesn't own Unix copyrights, just the trademark.

abrookewood 8y ago

Yes, if this decision doesn't go Googles way, all hell is going to break lose: WINE, Samba, S3 compatability, Amazon DocumentDB. The list is enormous and frankly, everyone loses somewhere. It's a complete nightmare.

cwyers 8y ago
Remember, if Oracle wins, they are not pursuing a ruling that obviates the doctrine of fair use; all of those cover the case of implementing an API for compatibility. Oracle's argument about Android and its use of Java is that Android did not run Java apps; it ran Java code, but it did not implement enough of the Java API surface to let you run Java apps unmodified. You could use existing Java code in new, Android-only apps that couldn't run on Sun/Oracle's JVM. Therefore, Oracle's argument is that the fair use doctrine does not apply here; that Android is a derivative work of Java, which is not fair use. WINE, for example, is not ruled impermissible by the sort of ruling Oracle seeks.
- throwaway67215 8y ago
  I agree that Oracle isn't trying to create a ruling that obviates fair use; but assume you believe that the appellate court's ruling is correct, and APIs are copyrightable, how does fair use cover implementing an API for compatibility? > Oracle's argument about Android and its use of Java is that Android did not run Java apps; it ran Java code, but it did not implement enough of the Java API surface to let you run Java apps unmodified. So what? Partial compatibility is still meaningful in software engineering, and should allow libraries to run on both. Are you saying that if Google had fully implemented all of the Java APIs, it would have been fair use? Further, can you ground the above reasoning (that fair use covers API copying, and that Google's partial implementation is material here) in the actual rulings for the case? I don't remember any of this from when I read them, though I do admit that was some time ago. > WINE, for example, is not ruled impermissible by the sort of ruling Oracle seeks. Why not? Simply because you cannot write a .exe that would run in WINE, but not in Windows? Further, what if the example was instead Linux? Linux implements Unix's APIs, but also adds other APIs. You can use existing "Unix" code in new, Linux-only apps that won't run on other *nix OSs.