3 ms·
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 wh
by 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 agoThe 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.