3 ms·

Because you can't just take other software and change the license on it. The industry's, justified, hate for Oracle is blinding them to the larger underlying c

Because you can't just take other software and change the license on it. The industry's, justified, hate for Oracle is blinding them to the larger underlying concern. Many people forget that Oracle technically won the legality of the last case, hence why we're here. They just weren't awarded damages. Even the judge didn't buy Google's arguments about open source or compatibility concerns.

monocasa 8y ago
They only got that ruling by appealing a copyright question to the patent appeals court, who for some reason decided to just go off into the weeds and set their own precedent in open conflict with the appeals court these questions would normally go to. That's why all the rulings keep getting overruled. The lower court judge is sane (he's actually awesome, you should check out Alsup) and keeps ruling in accordance with established case law, and the appeals court (who shouldn't even be answering copyright questions) keeps going 'nah, all that case law is stupid'. Hence why this should go to the supreme court who'll most likely tell the court of appeals for the federal circuit that they can't just go make their own law.
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  >They only got that ruling by appealing a copyright question to the patent appeals court, Read the original ruling.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    I've read all the rulings, what's your actual point?
    - kadendogthing 8y ago
      >They only got that ruling by appealing a copyright question to the patent appeals court, That's not true and doesn't really fit within any legal timeline. That's my point.
      - ilovetux 8y ago
        I believe that they are asking why do you believe that's not true. Your assertions are vague and do not help the discussion.
        kadendogthing 8y ago
        It's not true that they won the legality of the case through an appeal. The original ruling sided with oracle on technical and legal matters. They just weren't awarded damages.
        geofft 8y ago
        By "the original ruling" are you referring to https://www.eff.org/files/alsup_api_ruling.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/alsup_api_ruling.pdf , which says, "on the specific facts of this case, the particular elements replicated by Google were free for all to use under the Copyright Act. Therefore, Oracle’s claim based on Google’s copying of the 37 API packages, including their structure, sequence and organization is DISMISSED. To the extent stated herein, Google’s Rule 50 motions regarding copyrightability are GRANTED"? Can you point to what part of this ruling sided with Oracle on either technical or legal matters? (With the exception of rangeCheck.) Or can you link to what ruling you mean by "the original ruling"?
geofft 8y ago
Google did not take software (other than rangeCheck), they took interfaces. That said, it is common wisdom around F/OSS folks that you can't take other people's interfaces and change the license on it, e.g., I can't write and distribute a proprietary Linux kernel module using EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL functions. I haven't seen a good analysis of whether this case is relevant to that—would a Google victory mean that VMware's use of vmklinux is legal (well, at least in the US), that ZFSonLinux is in the clear, that Nvidia can write proprietary drivers using dma-buf, and that CLISP should have been able to use readline without relicensing itself under the GPL?
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  >Google did not take software (other than rangeCheck), they took interfaces. Are you contending that interfaces and API's are not software and do not have software licenses around them? Because that is a severely mistaken belief on both a technical and legal level.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    On a legal level, no, that's not a mistaken belief. Prior to this case, that was in fact the legal consensus. Given this case, it's only a mistaken belief if the Supreme Court decides for Oracle (or declines to take the case).
    - kadendogthing 8y ago
      >On a legal level, no, that's not a mistaken belief. Yes, on a legal level.
      - geofft 8y ago
        Can you explain why?
  - geofft 8y ago
    Yes, that is exactly my contention. An interface is no more software than a recipe is food, than a credit card statement is money. From a technical perspective, interfaces in, say, C are mostly compiled out. There is no place in a (stripped) binary where you can point to a structure definition. There is a place you can point to names of functions that are yet to be dynamically linked, but only their names, that place is different from the program code (text section) itself. None of this is to say interfaces are not an important part of software engineering. Interfaces, APIs, internal zero-cost abstractions, tests, comments, design documents, threat models, bug triage, commit messages, code reviews, operational techniques, runbooks, monitoring and alerting systems, end-user documentation, etc. are all important work products in the discipline of software engineering. They're also all (IMO) something different from the software itself.

monocasa 8y ago

They only got that ruling by appealing a copyright question to the patent appeals court, who for some reason decided to just go off into the weeds and set their own precedent in open conflict with the appeals court these questions would normally go to. That's why all the rulings keep getting overruled. The lower court judge is sane (he's actually awesome, you should check out Alsup) and keeps ruling in accordance with established case law, and the appeals court (who shouldn't even be answering copyright questions) keeps going 'nah, all that case law is stupid'. Hence why this should go to the supreme court who'll most likely tell the court of appeals for the federal circuit that they can't just go make their own law.

kadendogthing 8y ago
>They only got that ruling by appealing a copyright question to the patent appeals court, Read the original ruling.
- monocasa 8y ago
  I've read all the rulings, what's your actual point?
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    >They only got that ruling by appealing a copyright question to the patent appeals court, That's not true and doesn't really fit within any legal timeline. That's my point.
    - ilovetux 8y ago
      I believe that they are asking why do you believe that's not true. Your assertions are vague and do not help the discussion.
      - kadendogthing 8y ago
        It's not true that they won the legality of the case through an appeal. The original ruling sided with oracle on technical and legal matters. They just weren't awarded damages.
        geofft 8y ago
        By "the original ruling" are you referring to https://www.eff.org/files/alsup_api_ruling.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/alsup_api_ruling.pdf , which says, "on the specific facts of this case, the particular elements replicated by Google were free for all to use under the Copyright Act. Therefore, Oracle’s claim based on Google’s copying of the 37 API packages, including their structure, sequence and organization is DISMISSED. To the extent stated herein, Google’s Rule 50 motions regarding copyrightability are GRANTED"? Can you point to what part of this ruling sided with Oracle on either technical or legal matters? (With the exception of rangeCheck.) Or can you link to what ruling you mean by "the original ruling"?

geofft 8y ago

Google did not take software (other than rangeCheck), they took interfaces. That said, it is common wisdom around F/OSS folks that you can't take other people's interfaces and change the license on it, e.g., I can't write and distribute a proprietary Linux kernel module using EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL functions. I haven't seen a good analysis of whether this case is relevant to that—would a Google victory mean that VMware's use of vmklinux is legal (well, at least in the US), that ZFSonLinux is in the clear, that Nvidia can write proprietary drivers using dma-buf, and that CLISP should have been able to use readline without relicensing itself under the GPL?

kadendogthing 8y ago
>Google did not take software (other than rangeCheck), they took interfaces. Are you contending that interfaces and API's are not software and do not have software licenses around them? Because that is a severely mistaken belief on both a technical and legal level.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  On a legal level, no, that's not a mistaken belief. Prior to this case, that was in fact the legal consensus. Given this case, it's only a mistaken belief if the Supreme Court decides for Oracle (or declines to take the case).
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    >On a legal level, no, that's not a mistaken belief. Yes, on a legal level.
    - geofft 8y ago
      Can you explain why?
- geofft 8y ago
  Yes, that is exactly my contention. An interface is no more software than a recipe is food, than a credit card statement is money. From a technical perspective, interfaces in, say, C are mostly compiled out. There is no place in a (stripped) binary where you can point to a structure definition. There is a place you can point to names of functions that are yet to be dynamically linked, but only their names, that place is different from the program code (text section) itself. None of this is to say interfaces are not an important part of software engineering. Interfaces, APIs, internal zero-cost abstractions, tests, comments, design documents, threat models, bug triage, commit messages, code reviews, operational techniques, runbooks, monitoring and alerting systems, end-user documentation, etc. are all important work products in the discipline of software engineering. They're also all (IMO) something different from the software itself.