4 ms·

> What happens to WINE if it is illegal to use the same names Kernel32 does? I was wondering where would the Oracle win hurt most, and I think there is worse t

> What happens to WINE if it is illegal to use the same names Kernel32 does? I was wondering where would the Oracle win hurt most, and I think there is worse than WINE. The Unix syscalls would have been Bell Labs’ copyright. That copyright was sold to Novell, which was sold to… Micro Focus International plc? So this British consulting company that is, according to its website, “powering digital transformation”, could transform the digital world by suing BSD, Linux, Apple and Microsoft for tremendous sums of money and forbid them from using the famous syscalls. I guess a given set of CLI programs may also be seen as an application programming interface, which makes all of GNU liable too. Is that correct?

wtn 6y ago
4.4BSD was cleared in 1993: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc._v._Berkeley_Software_Design,_Inc.#Settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc....
- monocasa 6y ago
  That was only under the assumption that the APIs themselves weren't copyrightable.
  - gmiller123456 6y ago
    Looks like the case was settled fairly quickly, so exactly what the claims were aren't as clear, and whether or not the API is part of the settlement depends on the exact details of that contract which aren't public.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      It was very established ninth circuit case law at that time that APIs weren't copyrightable. This exact point came up today during oral arguments, with Oracle not denying it but instead saying that the terms "interface" and "API" weren't intended to apply to something so massive as the structure, sequence, and organization of the Java standard library. Additionally, the contract is public. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/USLsettlement.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/USLsettlement.pdf Point 9C on page 14 has the university declaring that as far as they know, no AT&T IP is present in 4.4BSD, despite it clearly having a UNIX compatible API.

wtn 6y ago

4.4BSD was cleared in 1993: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc._v._Berkeley_Software_Design,_Inc.#Settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc....

monocasa 6y ago
That was only under the assumption that the APIs themselves weren't copyrightable.
- gmiller123456 6y ago
  Looks like the case was settled fairly quickly, so exactly what the claims were aren't as clear, and whether or not the API is part of the settlement depends on the exact details of that contract which aren't public.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    It was very established ninth circuit case law at that time that APIs weren't copyrightable. This exact point came up today during oral arguments, with Oracle not denying it but instead saying that the terms "interface" and "API" weren't intended to apply to something so massive as the structure, sequence, and organization of the Java standard library. Additionally, the contract is public. http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/USLsettlement.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/USLsettlement.pdf Point 9C on page 14 has the university declaring that as far as they know, no AT&T IP is present in 4.4BSD, despite it clearly having a UNIX compatible API.