5 ms·

> "I wonder who owns SQL." I don't know what it would mean for someone to "own SQL". It's an ISO standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL#Interoperability

by grzm 7y ago

> "I wonder who owns SQL." I don't know what it would mean for someone to "own SQL". It's an ISO standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL#Interoperability_and_standardization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL#Interoperability_and_stand...

monocasa 7y ago
So is Java, but here we are. https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/ https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/
- grzm 7y ago
  > So is Java, but here we are. > https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/ https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/ That article describes when Sun was recognized as an official submitter for a proposed standardization of Java. It later withdrew. > "In 1997, Sun Microsystems approached the ISO/IEC JTC 1 standards body and later the Ecma International to formalize Java, but it soon withdrew from the process." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)#Hi... Java is not an ISO standard.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    The standard process is orthogonal anyway.
    - grzm 7y ago
      Orthogonal to what? The point is there is no "owner" of SQL in the way Oracle claims to own the Java API.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        How can an ISO standard grant access to a form of property that no one even thought could exist until decades after the ISO standard was written?
        grzm 7y ago
        I can no longer follow what you're arguing, nor do I think you're considering what's been presented to you. Have a good day.
        monocasa 7y ago
        I'm saying that ISO standards have might have no bearing on copyrightablity of APIs, or enforcement of that copyright. Copyright was never intended to protect against use in any implementation like Oracle's argument for API copyrightablility here. The idea of copyright at the time was protection against strict copying of the same (or close enough) implementation, and therefore ISO standards don't really protect against copyright claims. At the very best it's extremely grey area in the law.
        tingletech 7y ago
        ISO standards annoying are copyrighted with DRM (your pdf copy has your personal email in it, so they would know who shared it IIRC) — but have a policy that any patents must be disclosed and reasonably licensable.
        colejohnson66 7y ago
        IMO that’s not necessarily DRM, so much as just a watermark. Although one could argue they are using it to manage their rights digitally, hence DRM.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  You are not telling the truth - Java is not an ISO standard. Sun talked to both ISO (the linked article) and ECMA but a standard was never created.
gpm 7y ago
What does being an "ISO standard" have to do with anything? The law does not make exceptions for things the ISO chose to standardize. In fact, if Oracle is right, the ISO is likely violating the copyright of the original authors of SQL by even publishing that standard.
- flomo 7y ago
  Almost certainly IBM was a major contributor to the SQL standard. Since the entire point of a "standard" is to encourage third-party adoption, so it would rather difficult to sue anyone, imo. Sun set up a certification process for Java, but specifically had different rules for mobile applications, because that's where they were trying to make money. Not that I agree with Oracle's argument, but it was very willful on Google's part to avoid licensing. tldr; SQL is not analogous to Android.
  - gpm 7y ago
    I'm not sure, but as far as I know there isn't any way to accidentally grant a license to copyrighted material. Even if there is it is almost certainly all sorts of things that everyone but IBM really won't like, for instance, revokable. And of course no one thought to ask for a real license, because no one thought it was copyrightable. Willful on Google's part to avoid licensing is sort of synonyms with saying Google willfully complied with the law... I'm not sure how it's relevant.
    - flomo 7y ago
      It is the most relevant thing when judges started disagreeing with Google's take on the law. Sun wanted money for X, Google didn't want to pay for X. (And IBM didn't want money for SQL.)
      - gpm 7y ago
        The only thing it could possibly be relevant for is if Google tried to argue that they accidentally copied the sequence structure and organization of the API. No one is arguing that. Of course that was intentional. It definitely isn't relevant to the rest of this discussion... you're comparing the attitude of the producer of the allegedly copyrighted material in one case to the attitude of the infringer of the allegedly existing copyright in another.

by grzm 7y ago

monocasa 7y ago

So is Java, but here we are. https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/ https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/

grzm 7y ago
> So is Java, but here we are. > https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/ https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-wins-java-iso-approval/ That article describes when Sun was recognized as an official submitter for a proposed standardization of Java. It later withdrew. > "In 1997, Sun Microsystems approached the ISO/IEC JTC 1 standards body and later the Ecma International to formalize Java, but it soon withdrew from the process." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)#Hi... Java is not an ISO standard.
- monocasa 7y ago
  The standard process is orthogonal anyway.
  - grzm 7y ago
    Orthogonal to what? The point is there is no "owner" of SQL in the way Oracle claims to own the Java API.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      How can an ISO standard grant access to a form of property that no one even thought could exist until decades after the ISO standard was written?
      - grzm 7y ago
        I can no longer follow what you're arguing, nor do I think you're considering what's been presented to you. Have a good day.
        monocasa 7y ago
        I'm saying that ISO standards have might have no bearing on copyrightablity of APIs, or enforcement of that copyright. Copyright was never intended to protect against use in any implementation like Oracle's argument for API copyrightablility here. The idea of copyright at the time was protection against strict copying of the same (or close enough) implementation, and therefore ISO standards don't really protect against copyright claims. At the very best it's extremely grey area in the law.
        tingletech 7y ago
        ISO standards annoying are copyrighted with DRM (your pdf copy has your personal email in it, so they would know who shared it IIRC) — but have a policy that any patents must be disclosed and reasonably licensable.
        colejohnson66 7y ago
        IMO that’s not necessarily DRM, so much as just a watermark. Although one could argue they are using it to manage their rights digitally, hence DRM.
chrisseaton 7y ago
You are not telling the truth - Java is not an ISO standard. Sun talked to both ISO (the linked article) and ECMA but a standard was never created.

gpm 7y ago

What does being an "ISO standard" have to do with anything? The law does not make exceptions for things the ISO chose to standardize. In fact, if Oracle is right, the ISO is likely violating the copyright of the original authors of SQL by even publishing that standard.

flomo 7y ago
Almost certainly IBM was a major contributor to the SQL standard. Since the entire point of a "standard" is to encourage third-party adoption, so it would rather difficult to sue anyone, imo. Sun set up a certification process for Java, but specifically had different rules for mobile applications, because that's where they were trying to make money. Not that I agree with Oracle's argument, but it was very willful on Google's part to avoid licensing. tldr; SQL is not analogous to Android.
- gpm 7y ago
  I'm not sure, but as far as I know there isn't any way to accidentally grant a license to copyrighted material. Even if there is it is almost certainly all sorts of things that everyone but IBM really won't like, for instance, revokable. And of course no one thought to ask for a real license, because no one thought it was copyrightable. Willful on Google's part to avoid licensing is sort of synonyms with saying Google willfully complied with the law... I'm not sure how it's relevant.
  - flomo 7y ago
    It is the most relevant thing when judges started disagreeing with Google's take on the law. Sun wanted money for X, Google didn't want to pay for X. (And IBM didn't want money for SQL.)
    - gpm 7y ago
      The only thing it could possibly be relevant for is if Google tried to argue that they accidentally copied the sequence structure and organization of the API. No one is arguing that. Of course that was intentional. It definitely isn't relevant to the rest of this discussion... you're comparing the attitude of the producer of the allegedly copyrighted material in one case to the attitude of the infringer of the allegedly existing copyright in another.