3 ms·

I think that you're making a bit of a leap here. There are a large number of JVMs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machines https://en.wikip

by yarg 7y ago

I think that you're making a bit of a leap here. There are a large number of JVMs - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machines. Not all of which will be Oracle certified, I would argue that each and every one of them should be free to exist regardless of that fact, on the grounds of fair use. The courts have never been black and white entities - and there has long existed the legal notions of best and reasonable efforts. Which I think should be the standard by which a competing implementations interoperability should be judged. This also ties in to another part of another response that I had not addressed - the reasonable efforts standard would protect against being required to implement needlessly complex parts of API.

wtallis 7y ago
Postulating a "reasonable effort" legal standard does absolutely nothing to answer the more important questions about what kind and degree of compatibility should be considered the goal. Whether it's judged strictly or with some leeway, we still need to know who other than Oracle gets to decide how much compatibility with Java would be necessary for fair use to unquestionably apply.
throwaway2048 7y ago
The mistake you are making is assuming Oracle is, and will continue to operate in good faith, judging by their past history of rent extraction maximization, that is absolutely not the case.
- yarg 7y ago
  I know full well that Oracle isn't operating in good faith, it never has it never will - I have made no statement regarding Oracle's intention or nature (which I generally find to be malignant). In this instance, I believe both parties to be operating in bad faith. My position is relatively simple, and despite the hate it seems to have inspired I stand by it: A complex API is a creative work that deserves the protections of copyright, fair use limitations should be applicable based upon a need for the existence of interoperable software.
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    If you allow it to "deserve the protections of copyright" then it absolutely will be abused to ensure that inter-operation, and thus not violating Oracles copyright, is impossible.
    - yarg 7y ago
      Both copyright and patent law is already abused to a significant degree - that does not mean that the protections provided provide no worth or are unjustified. The problem is a system that rewards bad actors - and yes Oracle is one of those bad actors. The solution is to improve the system to disincentivise bad actors while continuing to provide time limited protections to those operating in good faith. As I've mentioned in other comments best and reasonable efforts are standards already used in the legal system - and there is no reason that those standards could not be applied to reimplementation efforts. All of the arguments that I've seen against what I'm suggesting are based around abuse of the system by bad faith actors - I think that they can be disincentivised without tearing it all down.
      - throwaway2048 7y ago
        The best way to disincentivise bad actors is to not give them a nuclear bomb to go threaten people with. The legal system has largely failed in constraining copyright and patent abuse, and indeed has been key in massively expanding their reach (See "business process" patents and software patents, as well as stuff like the DMCA to shut down basically anything that involves interfacing with things). API copyright is absolutely a _new_ concept invented whole cloth by the court, what advantage do you think it brings, vs the heavy tax on literally every piece of software ever created it imposes (after all CPU instruction sets are APIs). You have repeatedly failed to present any actual advantage it provides beyond "it was hard work". What new APIs are going to exist because of this new law, that did not exist beforehand? What is the point of even trying to design a system where supposedly only "good faith" is rewarded? (good luck with that one) Copyright is not about ownership because you created something, it is about benefit to society, that's why it expires and the public domain exists and also does not apply to all works.

by yarg 7y ago

wtallis 7y ago

Postulating a "reasonable effort" legal standard does absolutely nothing to answer the more important questions about what kind and degree of compatibility should be considered the goal. Whether it's judged strictly or with some leeway, we still need to know who other than Oracle gets to decide how much compatibility with Java would be necessary for fair use to unquestionably apply.

throwaway2048 7y ago

The mistake you are making is assuming Oracle is, and will continue to operate in good faith, judging by their past history of rent extraction maximization, that is absolutely not the case.

yarg 7y ago
I know full well that Oracle isn't operating in good faith, it never has it never will - I have made no statement regarding Oracle's intention or nature (which I generally find to be malignant). In this instance, I believe both parties to be operating in bad faith. My position is relatively simple, and despite the hate it seems to have inspired I stand by it: A complex API is a creative work that deserves the protections of copyright, fair use limitations should be applicable based upon a need for the existence of interoperable software.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  If you allow it to "deserve the protections of copyright" then it absolutely will be abused to ensure that inter-operation, and thus not violating Oracles copyright, is impossible.
  - yarg 7y ago
    Both copyright and patent law is already abused to a significant degree - that does not mean that the protections provided provide no worth or are unjustified. The problem is a system that rewards bad actors - and yes Oracle is one of those bad actors. The solution is to improve the system to disincentivise bad actors while continuing to provide time limited protections to those operating in good faith. As I've mentioned in other comments best and reasonable efforts are standards already used in the legal system - and there is no reason that those standards could not be applied to reimplementation efforts. All of the arguments that I've seen against what I'm suggesting are based around abuse of the system by bad faith actors - I think that they can be disincentivised without tearing it all down.
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      The best way to disincentivise bad actors is to not give them a nuclear bomb to go threaten people with. The legal system has largely failed in constraining copyright and patent abuse, and indeed has been key in massively expanding their reach (See "business process" patents and software patents, as well as stuff like the DMCA to shut down basically anything that involves interfacing with things). API copyright is absolutely a _new_ concept invented whole cloth by the court, what advantage do you think it brings, vs the heavy tax on literally every piece of software ever created it imposes (after all CPU instruction sets are APIs). You have repeatedly failed to present any actual advantage it provides beyond "it was hard work". What new APIs are going to exist because of this new law, that did not exist beforehand? What is the point of even trying to design a system where supposedly only "good faith" is rewarded? (good luck with that one) Copyright is not about ownership because you created something, it is about benefit to society, that's why it expires and the public domain exists and also does not apply to all works.