4 ms·

There is a view that WordPress plugins are open source because they inherit the WordPress GPL by using the WP plugin API. This case seems to apply in that the q

There is a view that WordPress plugins are open source because they inherit the WordPress GPL by using the WP plugin API. This case seems to apply in that the question is whether APIs are copyrightable. In other words, is one able to apply a license to an API that affects code and devs that use that API. So if Oracle loses, I wonder if that will have the unintended consequence of making WP plugins not inherit the GPL, which currently forces them to be open source. It could have similar effects on other projects.

toyg 8y ago
No, the issue being discussed is on the other side of the interface: if I reimplement a known API created by a developer, am I infringing the developer’s copyright? It doesn’t touch the question of “if I work with a certain software, do I have to follow the licensing terms of such software?”, which is what WP plugin developers must abide by.
belorn 8y ago
The wordpress argument is about the question if a court would see a plugin as an independent work, or as an modification of wordpress. Copyright law allows for independent works to interface with each other without permission from both authors, but do not allow modification of a work without permission. The distinction between a modification and a interface is an interesting legally gray area, but it is not relevant to the claim that Oracle is making. They say that the interface itself in Java was artistically made and thus made the header files copyright-able. If the courts agree with Oracle then it makes it impossible to write software that have compatible interface, since it is (almost) impossible to do so without creating copies the interface.
- wtallis 8y ago
  Is there anything in the Federal Circuit's ruling that restricts the consequences of API copyright to independent implementations of APIs, and ensures that consumers/users of the same APIs are not treated as derivative works of the API?
  - belorn 8y ago
    Not that I know of, but in general the idea of independent implementations of a compatible API is practically impossible. In order to be compatible it need to match, and while you can make a independent implementation of the libraries you will still need to copy the API definitions in order to be compatible. That is the part that Oracle sued for.

toyg 8y ago

No, the issue being discussed is on the other side of the interface: if I reimplement a known API created by a developer, am I infringing the developer’s copyright? It doesn’t touch the question of “if I work with a certain software, do I have to follow the licensing terms of such software?”, which is what WP plugin developers must abide by.

belorn 8y ago

The wordpress argument is about the question if a court would see a plugin as an independent work, or as an modification of wordpress. Copyright law allows for independent works to interface with each other without permission from both authors, but do not allow modification of a work without permission. The distinction between a modification and a interface is an interesting legally gray area, but it is not relevant to the claim that Oracle is making. They say that the interface itself in Java was artistically made and thus made the header files copyright-able. If the courts agree with Oracle then it makes it impossible to write software that have compatible interface, since it is (almost) impossible to do so without creating copies the interface.

wtallis 8y ago
Is there anything in the Federal Circuit's ruling that restricts the consequences of API copyright to independent implementations of APIs, and ensures that consumers/users of the same APIs are not treated as derivative works of the API?
- belorn 8y ago
  Not that I know of, but in general the idea of independent implementations of a compatible API is practically impossible. In order to be compatible it need to match, and while you can make a independent implementation of the libraries you will still need to copy the API definitions in order to be compatible. That is the part that Oracle sued for.