7 ms·

It's bad for programmers everywhere. If Oracle wins, you couldn't reimplement a compatible version of anything that's not open source. You couldn't make a third

It's bad for programmers everywhere. If Oracle wins, you couldn't reimplement a compatible version of anything that's not open source. You couldn't make a third-party implementation of a corporate-owned programming language without putting yourself at risk. Imagine you're a company using some Oracle database, and you want to reimplement some component of that system in order to migrate and escape their vendor lock-in... You can't, not without taking a huge legal risk. In the short term, it's a victory for huge litigious corporations like Oracle. The good thing, I hope, is that in the long term, this will make people distrust closed source software even more. What Oracle wants, and has always wanted, is to bind you in the worst possible form of vendor lock-in. Open source and open standards are the answer. Refuse anything else.

asah 6y ago
by the by... wasn't Oracle's original product a relational database management system (RDBMS) that offered a SQL API... which was invented/copyrighted by IBM ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL#History
- raverbashing 6y ago
  Of course. But Oracle doesn't care one bit about anything else that's not Oracle. Though it is still to be known how many reimplemented APIs from others does Oracle have in their products
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Nope, they pay for ISO which Google hasn't done for Java.
    - cyphar 6y ago
      You don't have to pay for ISO to implement an ISO standard. In addition, Oracle released their database software in 1979 but SQL only became an ANSI standard in 1986 (and an ISO standard in 1987) so they did originally reimplement an API which wasn't a public standard.
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        Sure you do, because the ISO documents aren't available for free nor the certification process.
        cyphar 6y ago
        I'm pretty sure that a fair number of commonly used QR libraries were not developed by people who shelled out for a copy of ISO 18004 (they probably just looked at descriptions of how it works outside of the standard document). Similarly, you can implement your own SQL dialect without needing to read the ISO standard for it. Yes if you want to be certified and want to get a copy of the standards document you'll need to pay, but it's not necessary (and I doubt that Oracle did, given that they implemented SQL before the standard existed and probably were involved in drafting it).
        pjmlp 6y ago
        Sure that is how 1€ product shops work, which doesn't mean the final product actually does what it supposed to do. Then that screwdriver turns itself instead of turning the screw. > probably were involved in drafting it Which also isn't done for free beer, ISO processes have associated costs.
        cyphar 6y ago
        I'm not disagreeing with the validity of ISO or anything like that, I don't know where you got that impression. The original point being made in this thread was that Oracle copied the API of SQL from IBM and thus is guilty of the same thing that they are accusing Google of doing. The counter-point was that SQL is an ISO standard and Oracle (allegedly) licensed it, which was then followed up by my point about Oracle DB predating the ISO standard. Hence why ISO is being discussed and why I was making the point that buying a standard document from ISO or paying for certification are not really relevant to this discussion.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - kayfox 6y ago
    Some bmc commentary on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=2280s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=2280s
- bitwize 6y ago
  It's the whole "Disney wants the copyright laws to prevent anyone from doing to Disney what Disney did to the Brothers Grimm" thing.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Yes and no. Yes, Oracle was a database with a SQL API. Yes, SQL was invented by IBM. No, it wasn't copyrighted by IBM, because at the time, nobody thought you could do that.
  - zwischenzug 6y ago
    I thought you couldn't 'copyright' something? I understood copyright to be something you had if you had created it.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      Ah, brain cramp. I was thinking of patent, not copyright. Until State Street, nobody thought you could patent software, so nobody tried. Copyright... of the top of my head, I don't recall much about copyrightability of software.
      - ghaff 6y ago
        There was still controversy about software copyrightability in 1974. That said, I expect IBM still explicitly copyrighted their implementation of SQL (and licensed it [1]) as they had first started doing with some of the System/360 software during the prior decade. Note that, in 1974, you still had to explicitly copyright something; it didn't just happen automatically like today. [1] As a side note, IBM may not have been the first to license software but they certainly helped make it a standard practice. When they unbundled much of the System/360 software, they felt that copyright was a weak protection (given its uncertain legal status) so they combined it with a license.
        lloeki 6y ago
        > it didn't just happen automatically like today. ... in the US of A. Berne convention started a little bit over a full century before that. Impressive that the superfluous “need” for the Copyright (c) YYYY notice still persists to this day in the mind of many.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  SQL is an ISO standard, which Oracle like everyone else also pays for.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    You can make an open-source database that uses the SQL language without paying a dime to anyone or signing any contracts. You don't have to pay for the ISO standard document to implement it - you can just infer behavior based on what you already know about sql.
    - techdragon 6y ago
      The state of SQL databases would be better if more people did pay for and try to actually implement the standards as written... same goes for many of these expensive standard documents. I’ve made a life long habit of collecting and archiving these in my personal documents whenever I get my hands on one. Because these are valuable guidelines as to how things are supposed to work.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Which isn't what ISO says it should be.
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
>you want to reimplement some component of that system That's patching and is already disallowed by licenses in USA, but allowed by law, but that law was goofed up by a court.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Could you be more specific? What law allows it, and how was it goofed up by a court?
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    It's allowed by DMCA, but a court ruled that the license overrides law, and now all licenses have "don't patch" clause.
pankajdoharey 6y ago
Let us assume for a moment Oracle wins this so what? Android will become illegal and then Oracle would ask Google to do what? Pay royalties? Pay Damages? Ask all the android programmers in the world to stop using Android ? Abandon android runtime? I think what is gonna happen realistically is capitalism will take over they will settle it among themselves and share user data as a bargain probably get some royalties. The worst that can happen is Google will abandon android runtime or transfer the development to Oracle. Either way nothing much is gonna happen. Android has already won now say from tomorrow Oracle develops and owns the android development toolchain, so what, from a programmers perspective nothing much.
- CobrastanJorji 6y ago
  Nothing much? This isn't just about the Java API. This is about EVERY API. You might not be able to write a web server anymore, depending on who owns the copyright for HTTP. You didn't invent GET, PUT, and POST, you thieving copyright abuser.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Back when I was working for Nokia, the APIs were patented, this is nothing new.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      Patents and copyrights aren't the same thing. Patenting an API makes sense, since APIs are essentially ideas. Copyrighting an API does not make sense.
      - lolc 6y ago
        You can't patent an idea. You can patent the implementation of it if you're specific enough.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
TheDong 6y ago
> If Oracle wins, you couldn't reimplement a compatible version of anything that's not open source It's worse than that. OpenJDK, including the java standard library, is GPL. It's open source. Oracle is claiming that even though source code defining the API is open source, they retain copyright to the API itself.. regardless of the open source implementation of the API by themselves. If this case goes through, you won't be able to mimic an open source project's API unless you also verify they provide the API under a similarly permissive license.
- jeremyjh 6y ago
  > Oracle is claiming that even though source code defining the API is open source, they retain copyright to the API itself.. Are you sure they are claiming that? A weaker claim could be that Google's usage does not conform to the GPL. Indeed if you were correct and the ruling is in Oracle's favor then the GPL is broken as designed, I haven't heard anyone express that concern in connection with this case.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > A weaker claim could be that Google's usage does not conform to the GPL. At the time at issue, Java wasn't under the GPL. That Google did not have a (public offer or private) license to Java is not in dispute.
  - initplus 6y ago
    I very much doubt that anyone in big tech wants to open the can of worms that is GPL enforcement.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > OpenJDK, including the java standard library, is GPL. It's open source. The code at issue is pre-OpenJDK, and wasn't open source when used (though much of it may now also be available in OpenJDK, not that Google uses it under the GPL, or claims to, anyhow.)
  - 6y ago

asah 6y ago

by the by... wasn't Oracle's original product a relational database management system (RDBMS) that offered a SQL API... which was invented/copyrighted by IBM ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL#History

raverbashing 6y ago
Of course. But Oracle doesn't care one bit about anything else that's not Oracle. Though it is still to be known how many reimplemented APIs from others does Oracle have in their products
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Nope, they pay for ISO which Google hasn't done for Java.
  - cyphar 6y ago
    You don't have to pay for ISO to implement an ISO standard. In addition, Oracle released their database software in 1979 but SQL only became an ANSI standard in 1986 (and an ISO standard in 1987) so they did originally reimplement an API which wasn't a public standard.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Sure you do, because the ISO documents aren't available for free nor the certification process.
      - cyphar 6y ago
        I'm pretty sure that a fair number of commonly used QR libraries were not developed by people who shelled out for a copy of ISO 18004 (they probably just looked at descriptions of how it works outside of the standard document). Similarly, you can implement your own SQL dialect without needing to read the ISO standard for it. Yes if you want to be certified and want to get a copy of the standards document you'll need to pay, but it's not necessary (and I doubt that Oracle did, given that they implemented SQL before the standard existed and probably were involved in drafting it).
        pjmlp 6y ago
        Sure that is how 1€ product shops work, which doesn't mean the final product actually does what it supposed to do. Then that screwdriver turns itself instead of turning the screw. > probably were involved in drafting it Which also isn't done for free beer, ISO processes have associated costs.
        cyphar 6y ago
        I'm not disagreeing with the validity of ISO or anything like that, I don't know where you got that impression. The original point being made in this thread was that Oracle copied the API of SQL from IBM and thus is guilty of the same thing that they are accusing Google of doing. The counter-point was that SQL is an ISO standard and Oracle (allegedly) licensed it, which was then followed up by my point about Oracle DB predating the ISO standard. Hence why ISO is being discussed and why I was making the point that buying a standard document from ISO or paying for certification are not really relevant to this discussion.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- kayfox 6y ago
  Some bmc commentary on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=2280s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=2280s
bitwize 6y ago
It's the whole "Disney wants the copyright laws to prevent anyone from doing to Disney what Disney did to the Brothers Grimm" thing.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Yes and no. Yes, Oracle was a database with a SQL API. Yes, SQL was invented by IBM. No, it wasn't copyrighted by IBM, because at the time, nobody thought you could do that.
- zwischenzug 6y ago
  I thought you couldn't 'copyright' something? I understood copyright to be something you had if you had created it.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Ah, brain cramp. I was thinking of patent, not copyright. Until State Street, nobody thought you could patent software, so nobody tried. Copyright... of the top of my head, I don't recall much about copyrightability of software.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      There was still controversy about software copyrightability in 1974. That said, I expect IBM still explicitly copyrighted their implementation of SQL (and licensed it [1]) as they had first started doing with some of the System/360 software during the prior decade. Note that, in 1974, you still had to explicitly copyright something; it didn't just happen automatically like today. [1] As a side note, IBM may not have been the first to license software but they certainly helped make it a standard practice. When they unbundled much of the System/360 software, they felt that copyright was a weak protection (given its uncertain legal status) so they combined it with a license.
      - lloeki 6y ago
        > it didn't just happen automatically like today. ... in the US of A. Berne convention started a little bit over a full century before that. Impressive that the superfluous “need” for the Copyright (c) YYYY notice still persists to this day in the mind of many.
pjmlp 6y ago
SQL is an ISO standard, which Oracle like everyone else also pays for.
- judge2020 6y ago
  You can make an open-source database that uses the SQL language without paying a dime to anyone or signing any contracts. You don't have to pay for the ISO standard document to implement it - you can just infer behavior based on what you already know about sql.
  - techdragon 6y ago
    The state of SQL databases would be better if more people did pay for and try to actually implement the standards as written... same goes for many of these expensive standard documents. I’ve made a life long habit of collecting and archiving these in my personal documents whenever I get my hands on one. Because these are valuable guidelines as to how things are supposed to work.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Which isn't what ISO says it should be.

GoblinSlayer 6y ago

>you want to reimplement some component of that system That's patching and is already disallowed by licenses in USA, but allowed by law, but that law was goofed up by a court.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Could you be more specific? What law allows it, and how was it goofed up by a court?
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  It's allowed by DMCA, but a court ruled that the license overrides law, and now all licenses have "don't patch" clause.

pankajdoharey 6y ago

Let us assume for a moment Oracle wins this so what? Android will become illegal and then Oracle would ask Google to do what? Pay royalties? Pay Damages? Ask all the android programmers in the world to stop using Android ? Abandon android runtime? I think what is gonna happen realistically is capitalism will take over they will settle it among themselves and share user data as a bargain probably get some royalties. The worst that can happen is Google will abandon android runtime or transfer the development to Oracle. Either way nothing much is gonna happen. Android has already won now say from tomorrow Oracle develops and owns the android development toolchain, so what, from a programmers perspective nothing much.

CobrastanJorji 6y ago
Nothing much? This isn't just about the Java API. This is about EVERY API. You might not be able to write a web server anymore, depending on who owns the copyright for HTTP. You didn't invent GET, PUT, and POST, you thieving copyright abuser.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Back when I was working for Nokia, the APIs were patented, this is nothing new.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    Patents and copyrights aren't the same thing. Patenting an API makes sense, since APIs are essentially ideas. Copyrighting an API does not make sense.
    - lolc 6y ago
      You can't patent an idea. You can patent the implementation of it if you're specific enough.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago

TheDong 6y ago

> If Oracle wins, you couldn't reimplement a compatible version of anything that's not open source It's worse than that. OpenJDK, including the java standard library, is GPL. It's open source. Oracle is claiming that even though source code defining the API is open source, they retain copyright to the API itself.. regardless of the open source implementation of the API by themselves. If this case goes through, you won't be able to mimic an open source project's API unless you also verify they provide the API under a similarly permissive license.

jeremyjh 6y ago
> Oracle is claiming that even though source code defining the API is open source, they retain copyright to the API itself.. Are you sure they are claiming that? A weaker claim could be that Google's usage does not conform to the GPL. Indeed if you were correct and the ruling is in Oracle's favor then the GPL is broken as designed, I haven't heard anyone express that concern in connection with this case.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > A weaker claim could be that Google's usage does not conform to the GPL. At the time at issue, Java wasn't under the GPL. That Google did not have a (public offer or private) license to Java is not in dispute.
- initplus 6y ago
  I very much doubt that anyone in big tech wants to open the can of worms that is GPL enforcement.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> OpenJDK, including the java standard library, is GPL. It's open source. The code at issue is pre-OpenJDK, and wasn't open source when used (though much of it may now also be available in OpenJDK, not that Google uses it under the GPL, or claims to, anyhow.)
- 6y ago