6 ms·

> 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 understan

> 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.
joshuamorton 7y ago
> 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. Why does it seem this way? > Someone else clones the repo, guys everything except the APIs, and reimplements what's inside. They then release this under an incompatible, proprietary license. So you mean, they don't even use your source code? For all you know they used 0% of your source code (for example the source of your amazing database was in C++, and they implemented theirs in Rust). Why should Amazon's completely different amazing database that shares zero implementation details of yours be contributed back? Another bad side effect of things like this is that potentially things like `Shape` and `sort` become copyrightable APIs. If oracle has copyright on Java APIs, that prevents other people from implementing better/other versions of the Java sort function (maybe it's faster, but unstable), you can't implement that.
- staticassertion 7y ago
  Why does it seem what way? Like a violation? For the same reason that it would be a violation of my license if they copy/pasted the code and just made some modifications to the implementation, then released it under a proprietary license. > So you mean, they don't even use your source code? They delete the implementation but keep the API. But sure, let's say they deleted 100% of the code just for argument's sake. > that shares zero implementation details of yours be contributed back? My opinion is that APIs are implementation details. I completely fail to see why some people are insisting that APIs are not code. > Another bad side effect of things like this is that potentially things like `Shape` and `sort` become copyrightable APIs. Doubtful. For one thing, they exist across tons of languages - you can't copyright the work of others. > If oracle has copyright on Java APIs, that prevents other people from implementing better/other versions of the Java sort function (maybe it's faster, but unstable), you can't implement that. Not true. Oracle's copyright would not extend outside of their enterprise / separately licensed APIs. If people choose to use those APIs they are accepting Oracle's copyright, which is an obvious mistake that they should avoid. Copyright is not there to protect you from making a bad technical decision If Java's APIs were all copyrighted the obvious choice would be to not use Java. Same reason why companies ban using libraries that are AGPL3.
takeda 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. Yes you can't, but currently in case for example Linux and ZFS and even BSD and ZFS. Programmers were able to use ZFS (note, it is Open Source but under CDDL) by implementing so called shim, that was providing API that ZFS was expecting. Ruling in favor of Oracle will make this illegal. Even within Open Source it could became a problem, for example FreeBSD implements Linux ABI (it's binary version of API) which allows it to run Linux binaries natively. Depending if the other side is hostile, this might no longer be allowed. Same thing with Wine. The law would prevent interoperability between all kinds of software, that's bad thing for all users, it's already difficult. > 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. First of all, creating a good API is not trivial, but it is nothing compared to developing the actual product. If someone went the effort and create their own database from scratch that someone (especially if it is Amazon) would provide their own API, even today when it is legal to use someone else's. They would be concerned that having to follow other API would limit them, also it would make it easy to replace their product with Open Source alternative. You're saying that Amazon is already doing, I'm guessing you mean Aurora PostgreSQL and MySQL. In those instances they are using existing Open Source products and just replaced the storage layer with their proprietary. They can do this, because license permits them already. PostgreSQL license allows for commercial use without sharing code, MySQL is GPL but most likely they paid Oracle for the proprietary license. Ruling in Oracle's favor won't change anything there.
- staticassertion 7y ago
  > Depending if the other side is hostile, this might no longer be allowed It seems like it would be license compatible. > The law would prevent interoperability between all kinds of software, that's bad thing for all users, Only between incompatibly licensed interfaces. > First of all, creating a good API is not trivial, but it is nothing compared to developing the actual product. It could be, depending on the implementation. I don't know what your next few sentences are saying. > I'm guessing you mean Aurora PostgreSQL and MySQL No. I mean their proprietary reimplementation of Rabbit, Cassandra, and MongoDB.
UncleMeat 7y ago
If your code is floss then amazon or whoever could just fork the code and just use it in their backend. If that is okay with you then why is complete reimplementing it not okay? In both cases customers are directed away from your wallet.

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.

joshuamorton 7y ago

> 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. Why does it seem this way? > Someone else clones the repo, guys everything except the APIs, and reimplements what's inside. They then release this under an incompatible, proprietary license. So you mean, they don't even use your source code? For all you know they used 0% of your source code (for example the source of your amazing database was in C++, and they implemented theirs in Rust). Why should Amazon's completely different amazing database that shares zero implementation details of yours be contributed back? Another bad side effect of things like this is that potentially things like `Shape` and `sort` become copyrightable APIs. If oracle has copyright on Java APIs, that prevents other people from implementing better/other versions of the Java sort function (maybe it's faster, but unstable), you can't implement that.

staticassertion 7y ago
Why does it seem what way? Like a violation? For the same reason that it would be a violation of my license if they copy/pasted the code and just made some modifications to the implementation, then released it under a proprietary license. > So you mean, they don't even use your source code? They delete the implementation but keep the API. But sure, let's say they deleted 100% of the code just for argument's sake. > that shares zero implementation details of yours be contributed back? My opinion is that APIs are implementation details. I completely fail to see why some people are insisting that APIs are not code. > Another bad side effect of things like this is that potentially things like `Shape` and `sort` become copyrightable APIs. Doubtful. For one thing, they exist across tons of languages - you can't copyright the work of others. > If oracle has copyright on Java APIs, that prevents other people from implementing better/other versions of the Java sort function (maybe it's faster, but unstable), you can't implement that. Not true. Oracle's copyright would not extend outside of their enterprise / separately licensed APIs. If people choose to use those APIs they are accepting Oracle's copyright, which is an obvious mistake that they should avoid. Copyright is not there to protect you from making a bad technical decision If Java's APIs were all copyrighted the obvious choice would be to not use Java. Same reason why companies ban using libraries that are AGPL3.

takeda 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. Yes you can't, but currently in case for example Linux and ZFS and even BSD and ZFS. Programmers were able to use ZFS (note, it is Open Source but under CDDL) by implementing so called shim, that was providing API that ZFS was expecting. Ruling in favor of Oracle will make this illegal. Even within Open Source it could became a problem, for example FreeBSD implements Linux ABI (it's binary version of API) which allows it to run Linux binaries natively. Depending if the other side is hostile, this might no longer be allowed. Same thing with Wine. The law would prevent interoperability between all kinds of software, that's bad thing for all users, it's already difficult. > 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. First of all, creating a good API is not trivial, but it is nothing compared to developing the actual product. If someone went the effort and create their own database from scratch that someone (especially if it is Amazon) would provide their own API, even today when it is legal to use someone else's. They would be concerned that having to follow other API would limit them, also it would make it easy to replace their product with Open Source alternative. You're saying that Amazon is already doing, I'm guessing you mean Aurora PostgreSQL and MySQL. In those instances they are using existing Open Source products and just replaced the storage layer with their proprietary. They can do this, because license permits them already. PostgreSQL license allows for commercial use without sharing code, MySQL is GPL but most likely they paid Oracle for the proprietary license. Ruling in Oracle's favor won't change anything there.

staticassertion 7y ago
> Depending if the other side is hostile, this might no longer be allowed It seems like it would be license compatible. > The law would prevent interoperability between all kinds of software, that's bad thing for all users, Only between incompatibly licensed interfaces. > First of all, creating a good API is not trivial, but it is nothing compared to developing the actual product. It could be, depending on the implementation. I don't know what your next few sentences are saying. > I'm guessing you mean Aurora PostgreSQL and MySQL No. I mean their proprietary reimplementation of Rabbit, Cassandra, and MongoDB.

UncleMeat 7y ago

If your code is floss then amazon or whoever could just fork the code and just use it in their backend. If that is okay with you then why is complete reimplementing it not okay? In both cases customers are directed away from your wallet.