4 ms·

Just to be clear, you can get away with this?

gpm 7y ago
If they win the Google-Oracle case, they'll probably end up paying Amazon a bit in a new Amazon-Oracle case. But yes, I'm pretty sure they can get away with this in the sense of avoiding submitting themselves to the their interpretation of the law unless/until it's ruled correct by a court. The Google-Oracle case looks like it will be heard by the supreme court sometime in March, we'll get a ruling before the court goes out of session for the summer (the court takes a summer break). I'm pretty sure even if Amazon sued Oracle now, that court would be happy to stay the case until the Supreme court rules. Even if the court wasn't actually willing to stay the case, it seems highly unlikely it would be at all resolved before the supreme court rules. Oracle is capable of delaying for a few months... IANAL
o-__-o 7y ago
to be clear, there is nothing illegal with reverse engineering something. the burden is on the plantiff to prove infrigement (uphill battle). the problem is when the source code with an unfriendly license is made available then the question becomes is the new implementation infringing the work of the original. oracle v google is tough because google basically took java and executed 's/Java/GoogleJava/g'. the amazon plea is different because amazon published their SDK AND gave it a permissive license. further oracle is not looking at the S3 code to figure out how to implement the API, they must implement the functionality of the API based off guesses of the client SDK.
- gpm 7y ago
  The permissive license here does not matter, since Oracle did not comply with the extremely liberal terms of the license. The implementation of Java and the implementation of the AWS API does not matter, since the Oracle-Google suit is (at this point) strictly over the structure sequence and organization of the APIs. How the code implementing the API came to be is completely and wholly irrelevant to the suit at hand. Not that it matters (as explained above), but you're also wrong that google took java and executed 's/java/GoogleJava/g'. They re-implemented the entire API in dispute by hand, the only portion they copied from Oracle's implementation was the API.

gpm 7y ago

If they win the Google-Oracle case, they'll probably end up paying Amazon a bit in a new Amazon-Oracle case. But yes, I'm pretty sure they can get away with this in the sense of avoiding submitting themselves to the their interpretation of the law unless/until it's ruled correct by a court. The Google-Oracle case looks like it will be heard by the supreme court sometime in March, we'll get a ruling before the court goes out of session for the summer (the court takes a summer break). I'm pretty sure even if Amazon sued Oracle now, that court would be happy to stay the case until the Supreme court rules. Even if the court wasn't actually willing to stay the case, it seems highly unlikely it would be at all resolved before the supreme court rules. Oracle is capable of delaying for a few months... IANAL

o-__-o 7y ago

to be clear, there is nothing illegal with reverse engineering something. the burden is on the plantiff to prove infrigement (uphill battle). the problem is when the source code with an unfriendly license is made available then the question becomes is the new implementation infringing the work of the original. oracle v google is tough because google basically took java and executed 's/Java/GoogleJava/g'. the amazon plea is different because amazon published their SDK AND gave it a permissive license. further oracle is not looking at the S3 code to figure out how to implement the API, they must implement the functionality of the API based off guesses of the client SDK.

gpm 7y ago
The permissive license here does not matter, since Oracle did not comply with the extremely liberal terms of the license. The implementation of Java and the implementation of the AWS API does not matter, since the Oracle-Google suit is (at this point) strictly over the structure sequence and organization of the APIs. How the code implementing the API came to be is completely and wholly irrelevant to the suit at hand. Not that it matters (as explained above), but you're also wrong that google took java and executed 's/java/GoogleJava/g'. They re-implemented the entire API in dispute by hand, the only portion they copied from Oracle's implementation was the API.