6 ms·

> Those in Oracle's camp say if its copyright is not protected, that will discourage innovation. Look at the way YouTube Content ID encourages innovation and t

> Those in Oracle's camp say if its copyright is not protected, that will discourage innovation. Look at the way YouTube Content ID encourages innovation and then imagine GitHub Content ID. “Your repository contains 3 copyrighted method calls. You’ve been issued a copyright strike.” I’d love to see every open source repo on the internet go private for 1 day as a demonstration of what could be lost if copyright is allowed to weasel its way into APIs. GitHub and NPM should give users the option to block their repos for a day. A bazillion failing builds would open some eyes IMO.

segfaultbuserr 6y ago
In this timeline, the Wine repo mirror will be instantaneously banned on GitHub.
- swiley 6y ago
  Wine's userspace being legal is probably what keeps the gamers from just running the available userspace source code from Microsoft. I doubt getting it banned would be something Microsoft actually wants.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    But unless Microsoft actually embraces Wine, that would still leave the project in a weird legal gray area. Will e.g. Valve want to support the project, knowing that at any moment Microsoft could theoretically have a shift in strategy and become litigious?
    - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
      Originally Microsoft was on the Oracle side in this case.
  - segfaultbuserr 6y ago
    It's an interesting perspective. Microsoft already promised not to harm Mono, so if the lawsuit is won by Oracle, it's certainly possible for Microsoft to promise not to harm Wine as a PR move without addressing the actual issue, and this strategy can actually work better for Microsoft to keep its control on APIs! It can be similar to how Apple had broadened the scope of its repair program to weaken the Right to Repair movement. Really scary.
user5994461 6y ago
Then imagine the outrage from European companies and users getting hit by this ludicrous US copyright thing that doesn't apply to them (the European court rejected oracle claims long ago).
- gonzo41 6y ago
  Could be a good moment for the European software industry.
  - est31 6y ago
    EU has the copyright directive with its upload filters.
    - Longhanks 6y ago
      Not all of Europe is in the EU, though.
      - user5994461 6y ago
        Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are very close to the EU culturally even though they are not full members of the union.
        est31 6y ago
        To add to this, EEA members still have to comply by EU laws. Norway and Iceland are EEA members. Switzerland is not, but it has made a separate deal with the EU that has almost the same content as the EEA deals (idk the differences in detail).
    - raverbashing 6y ago
      But as the parent said, this doesn't apply And guess what, all the American services have the upload filters already. So the point is moot
nvarsj 6y ago
This is a complete dramatization. Are you copying 10k lines of code from a licensed code base into your project without permission and using it in your commercial product? Github projects already should strive to use correct licensing, and comply with the license of code they use. There is nothing new here.
- protomyth 6y ago
  I'm not sure it is. Given that an original API might have a single method with the same signature as one used in a copyrighted API or the malicious actors we have in this industry, I can see the problems with YouTube Content ID coming to GitHub.
- coldpie 6y ago
  You don't understand what this case is about. This is about copyrighting API descriptions. Not copying code, but reimplementing an API that someone else created. Think about how many people created each part of the various web APIs. Is XmlHTTPRequest now owned by Microsoft? Who invented the Blink tag? Who owns which parts of the SQL language? The entire software industry is built on the idea that APIs are not copyrightable. If you thought software patent trolling was bad, buddy, you ain't see nothin' yet.
  - sushshshsh 6y ago
    hehe this is the correct answer. basically if i make my own FileWriter class and choose to name one of the methods in that class "write()", then I'm infringing on Oracle XD Wonder what happens if I call it "_write()"
    - zingermc 6y ago
      void DocumentScribbler.scribble(String s)
      - sgc 6y ago
        Using String as a ProgType(tm)? That's a paddlin'. We use CharGroup around here, which we are willing to license for a small fee. For a limited time, get 10% off when you license three or more ProgTypes(tm)! Indemnification licensed separately. Contact our enterprise relations desk for details.
ForHackernews 6y ago
> A bazillion failing builds would open some eyes IMO. No it wouldn't. Lawyers and executives don't care about your error-prone CI/CD pipeline.
- Shared404 6y ago
  But their rich clients do.
compsciphd 6y ago
anyone who believes that GPLd dynamically linked libraries impact code written to use them effectively believes that APIs can be copyrighted. (ex: the FSF believes this).
- coldpie 6y ago
  You may be right, but can you supply a citation for this? I believe many open-core software vendors work around this idea by doing exactly what you suggest: creating an API barrier where the proprietary software lives on one side and the GPL'd software on the other. It requires some care so you don't cross GPL'd software into the proprietary side, but it's fairly common. I think the Linux Nvidia GPU driver works this way.
  - compsciphd 6y ago
    citation that the FSF believes that GPLd libraries when dynamically linked require the all the code to be GPLd? https://gitlab.com/gnu-clisp/clisp/blob/dd313099db351c90431c1c90332192edce2bb5c9/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL https://gitlab.com/gnu-clisp/clisp/blob/dd313099db351c90431c... or something else? I agree that many create that API barrier (ex: ZFS on Linux). Those that argue that ZFS on Linux is legally problematic agree with the FSF's definition (which I would argue leads to the belief that APIs are copyrightable). Those that think ZFS on Linux is on a fine footing believe that APIs aren't copyrightable and one can create a shim to decouple your non GPLd code from GPL "libraries", especially if the coupling that ends up happening is never distributed as done by the end user.
    - coldpie 6y ago
      Yes, that's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for the read, it was very interesting. I thought this was a settled matter, but it looks like I was wrong.
  - salawat 6y ago
    It's called a GPL condom, and that's a bit different in the end in that the GPL mandates GPL'ing code that links against GPL symbols. It's more of a contract than copyright. If you want to use these in your code, you must GPL, or reimplement at your leisure! That's less Copyright in the sense that it's mandating the relinquishing of monopolistic control of the work product in question to the public. Oracle wants the opposite. They want Java used everywhere, and the right to sue anyone who does anything too similar to it too. This is absolutely an act of monopolistic market shaping. No smaller firm would ever have utilized this nuclear option of a lawsuit given the widespread damage this could potentially cause to the entire software ecosystem. This would honestly be enough to get me moving completely out of Software if the Court screws the pooch on this badly enough. I'm not spending the rest of my life debugging code that as a matter of fact must be run through obfuscate steps to avoid copyright liability.
tomcat27 6y ago
seriously! strike for a week.

segfaultbuserr 6y ago

In this timeline, the Wine repo mirror will be instantaneously banned on GitHub.

swiley 6y ago
Wine's userspace being legal is probably what keeps the gamers from just running the available userspace source code from Microsoft. I doubt getting it banned would be something Microsoft actually wants.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  But unless Microsoft actually embraces Wine, that would still leave the project in a weird legal gray area. Will e.g. Valve want to support the project, knowing that at any moment Microsoft could theoretically have a shift in strategy and become litigious?
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    Originally Microsoft was on the Oracle side in this case.
- segfaultbuserr 6y ago
  It's an interesting perspective. Microsoft already promised not to harm Mono, so if the lawsuit is won by Oracle, it's certainly possible for Microsoft to promise not to harm Wine as a PR move without addressing the actual issue, and this strategy can actually work better for Microsoft to keep its control on APIs! It can be similar to how Apple had broadened the scope of its repair program to weaken the Right to Repair movement. Really scary.

user5994461 6y ago

Then imagine the outrage from European companies and users getting hit by this ludicrous US copyright thing that doesn't apply to them (the European court rejected oracle claims long ago).

gonzo41 6y ago
Could be a good moment for the European software industry.
- est31 6y ago
  EU has the copyright directive with its upload filters.
  - Longhanks 6y ago
    Not all of Europe is in the EU, though.
    - user5994461 6y ago
      Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are very close to the EU culturally even though they are not full members of the union.
      - est31 6y ago
        To add to this, EEA members still have to comply by EU laws. Norway and Iceland are EEA members. Switzerland is not, but it has made a separate deal with the EU that has almost the same content as the EEA deals (idk the differences in detail).
  - raverbashing 6y ago
    But as the parent said, this doesn't apply And guess what, all the American services have the upload filters already. So the point is moot

nvarsj 6y ago

This is a complete dramatization. Are you copying 10k lines of code from a licensed code base into your project without permission and using it in your commercial product? Github projects already should strive to use correct licensing, and comply with the license of code they use. There is nothing new here.

protomyth 6y ago
I'm not sure it is. Given that an original API might have a single method with the same signature as one used in a copyrighted API or the malicious actors we have in this industry, I can see the problems with YouTube Content ID coming to GitHub.
coldpie 6y ago
You don't understand what this case is about. This is about copyrighting API descriptions. Not copying code, but reimplementing an API that someone else created. Think about how many people created each part of the various web APIs. Is XmlHTTPRequest now owned by Microsoft? Who invented the Blink tag? Who owns which parts of the SQL language? The entire software industry is built on the idea that APIs are not copyrightable. If you thought software patent trolling was bad, buddy, you ain't see nothin' yet.
- sushshshsh 6y ago
  hehe this is the correct answer. basically if i make my own FileWriter class and choose to name one of the methods in that class "write()", then I'm infringing on Oracle XD Wonder what happens if I call it "_write()"
  - zingermc 6y ago
    void DocumentScribbler.scribble(String s)
    - sgc 6y ago
      Using String as a ProgType(tm)? That's a paddlin'. We use CharGroup around here, which we are willing to license for a small fee. For a limited time, get 10% off when you license three or more ProgTypes(tm)! Indemnification licensed separately. Contact our enterprise relations desk for details.

ForHackernews 6y ago

> A bazillion failing builds would open some eyes IMO. No it wouldn't. Lawyers and executives don't care about your error-prone CI/CD pipeline.

Shared404 6y ago
But their rich clients do.

compsciphd 6y ago

anyone who believes that GPLd dynamically linked libraries impact code written to use them effectively believes that APIs can be copyrighted. (ex: the FSF believes this).

coldpie 6y ago
You may be right, but can you supply a citation for this? I believe many open-core software vendors work around this idea by doing exactly what you suggest: creating an API barrier where the proprietary software lives on one side and the GPL'd software on the other. It requires some care so you don't cross GPL'd software into the proprietary side, but it's fairly common. I think the Linux Nvidia GPU driver works this way.
- compsciphd 6y ago
  citation that the FSF believes that GPLd libraries when dynamically linked require the all the code to be GPLd? https://gitlab.com/gnu-clisp/clisp/blob/dd313099db351c90431c1c90332192edce2bb5c9/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL https://gitlab.com/gnu-clisp/clisp/blob/dd313099db351c90431c... or something else? I agree that many create that API barrier (ex: ZFS on Linux). Those that argue that ZFS on Linux is legally problematic agree with the FSF's definition (which I would argue leads to the belief that APIs are copyrightable). Those that think ZFS on Linux is on a fine footing believe that APIs aren't copyrightable and one can create a shim to decouple your non GPLd code from GPL "libraries", especially if the coupling that ends up happening is never distributed as done by the end user.
  - coldpie 6y ago
    Yes, that's exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for the read, it was very interesting. I thought this was a settled matter, but it looks like I was wrong.
- salawat 6y ago
  It's called a GPL condom, and that's a bit different in the end in that the GPL mandates GPL'ing code that links against GPL symbols. It's more of a contract than copyright. If you want to use these in your code, you must GPL, or reimplement at your leisure! That's less Copyright in the sense that it's mandating the relinquishing of monopolistic control of the work product in question to the public. Oracle wants the opposite. They want Java used everywhere, and the right to sue anyone who does anything too similar to it too. This is absolutely an act of monopolistic market shaping. No smaller firm would ever have utilized this nuclear option of a lawsuit given the widespread damage this could potentially cause to the entire software ecosystem. This would honestly be enough to get me moving completely out of Software if the Court screws the pooch on this badly enough. I'm not spending the rest of my life debugging code that as a matter of fact must be run through obfuscate steps to avoid copyright liability.

tomcat27 6y ago

seriously! strike for a week.