6 ms·

It goes both ways. WINE is a free implementation of windows apis. After an oracle win, widows could sue to stop development of wine.

staticassertion 7y ago
But it has always gone both ways with software licensing.
- takeda 7y ago
  Copyrighting API means there no longer is operability allowed, not only between proprietary and open source software, but also between incompatible open source software. For example ruling in Oracle's favor means no ZFS on Linux. Your concern about Amazon implementing proprietary solutions using open source API I believe is not an issue. I actually can't see it being one. It's like a proprietary service using TCP/IP. I don't think it would be easier to write an open source client, if there was a proprietary stack that copyright would prevent you from implementing anything compatible with it.
  - staticassertion 7y ago
    > also between incompatible open source software. For example ruling in Oracle's favor means no ZFS on Linux. Can you please elaborate here? I don't understand what you mean. It is already the case that you can not relicense software under and incompatible license. > I actually can't see it being one. Let's say I write an amazing database. It's open source, and my license dictates that any modifications to the source code get contributed back. Someone else clones the repo, guys everything except the APIs, and reimplements what's inside. They then release this under an incompatible, proprietary license. Why is that ok? It seems like a clear violation of the intent of my copyright. And it's already what we see AWS doing, so this is obviously a lever that large companies are willing to pull.
    - nitrogen 7y ago
      We wouldn't have Linux, BSDs, or MacOS, or any of our modern web infrastructure, if AT&T had been able to maintain a monopoly on the UNIX API design.
      - ChrisLomont 7y ago
        Those came out to scratch an itch. If AT&T had maintained a monopoly on UNIX API, someone else would have scratched the itch. Maybe someone would have designed an interface and explicitly granted public reproduction rights, as many products have done before UNIX and after. So even with this change, we'd still likely have most of not all of the same overall solutions, derived from other places.
    - raverbashing 7y ago
      Because the API is not code. It's that simple It is implemented through code, but it isn't. > Let's say I write an amazing database. It's open source... Someone else clones the repo, guys everything except the APIs, and reimplements what's inside It's fine to copy the essential parts to maintain interoperability, so that's fine. But then again, API is not code so "guts everything besides the API" is almost moot.
      - staticassertion 7y ago
        You can say an API isn't code but it doesn't make it true. Even if it somehow were true, code is hardly the only thing copyrightable, even in software.
    - diffeomorphism 7y ago
      > Can you please elaborate here? I don't understand what you mean. It is already the case that you can not relicense software under and incompatible license. According to some groups (Canonical, Nvidia, VMware etc.) you can use proprietary/incompatible licenses with (not in) the Linux kernel by using a shim. This shim construction or other compatibility layers relies on the argument that you don't have to relicense at all, but that just using/implementing the API is fine. The Oracle case has the possibility of changing this logic completely, making all shims/compatibility layers illegal and possibly making all software GPL.
  - boublepop 7y ago
    Let’s not go all draconian here. Copyrighting APIs just means you need approval from the original owning entity to do interoperability. Which again comes down to licensing. Why should the creator not own what they create and why should others not be forced to seek approval or license to use it? You might say “but the purpose of APIs is integration! How can they sue people for using it for integration?” But it seems obvious that they would be able to sue people using Oracle DB without license even if they are using it for its intended purpose.

staticassertion 7y ago

But it has always gone both ways with software licensing.

takeda 7y ago
Copyrighting API means there no longer is operability allowed, not only between proprietary and open source software, but also between incompatible open source software. For example ruling in Oracle's favor means no ZFS on Linux. Your concern about Amazon implementing proprietary solutions using open source API I believe is not an issue. I actually can't see it being one. It's like a proprietary service using TCP/IP. I don't think it would be easier to write an open source client, if there was a proprietary stack that copyright would prevent you from implementing anything compatible with it.
- staticassertion 7y ago
  > also between incompatible open source software. For example ruling in Oracle's favor means no ZFS on Linux. Can you please elaborate here? I don't understand what you mean. It is already the case that you can not relicense software under and incompatible license. > I actually can't see it being one. Let's say I write an amazing database. It's open source, and my license dictates that any modifications to the source code get contributed back. Someone else clones the repo, guys everything except the APIs, and reimplements what's inside. They then release this under an incompatible, proprietary license. Why is that ok? It seems like a clear violation of the intent of my copyright. And it's already what we see AWS doing, so this is obviously a lever that large companies are willing to pull.
  - nitrogen 7y ago
    We wouldn't have Linux, BSDs, or MacOS, or any of our modern web infrastructure, if AT&T had been able to maintain a monopoly on the UNIX API design.
    - ChrisLomont 7y ago
      Those came out to scratch an itch. If AT&T had maintained a monopoly on UNIX API, someone else would have scratched the itch. Maybe someone would have designed an interface and explicitly granted public reproduction rights, as many products have done before UNIX and after. So even with this change, we'd still likely have most of not all of the same overall solutions, derived from other places.
  - raverbashing 7y ago
    Because the API is not code. It's that simple It is implemented through code, but it isn't. > Let's say I write an amazing database. It's open source... Someone else clones the repo, guys everything except the APIs, and reimplements what's inside It's fine to copy the essential parts to maintain interoperability, so that's fine. But then again, API is not code so "guts everything besides the API" is almost moot.
    - staticassertion 7y ago
      You can say an API isn't code but it doesn't make it true. Even if it somehow were true, code is hardly the only thing copyrightable, even in software.
  - diffeomorphism 7y ago
    > Can you please elaborate here? I don't understand what you mean. It is already the case that you can not relicense software under and incompatible license. According to some groups (Canonical, Nvidia, VMware etc.) you can use proprietary/incompatible licenses with (not in) the Linux kernel by using a shim. This shim construction or other compatibility layers relies on the argument that you don't have to relicense at all, but that just using/implementing the API is fine. The Oracle case has the possibility of changing this logic completely, making all shims/compatibility layers illegal and possibly making all software GPL.
- boublepop 7y ago
  Let’s not go all draconian here. Copyrighting APIs just means you need approval from the original owning entity to do interoperability. Which again comes down to licensing. Why should the creator not own what they create and why should others not be forced to seek approval or license to use it? You might say “but the purpose of APIs is integration! How can they sue people for using it for integration?” But it seems obvious that they would be able to sue people using Oracle DB without license even if they are using it for its intended purpose.