5 ms·

AWS licenses it's client library as under the Apache License. (https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-java/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-java/b

AWS licenses it's client library as under the Apache License. (https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-java/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-java/blob/master/LICENSE.txt) Doesn't that mean anyone can build an interoperable service? I can then benefit from other cloud providers implementing the same API. I don't need access to AWS' source code, I wasn't going to deploy a private cloud anyway. All I want is robust competition.

returningfory2 6y ago
Yeah, I think this is what Digital Ocean does? I believe the AWS S3 Python library works out of the box for DO.
jacobr1 6y ago
This has already happened to an extent. For example, there are bunch of API compatible implementations of s3, both oss and proprietary and most of them suggest you use the AWS sdk as a client.
- marksomnian 6y ago
  Including, amusingly enough, Oracle: https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/en-us/iaas/Content/Object/Tasks/s3compatibleapi.htm https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/en-us/iaas/Content/Object/Task...
  - arh68 6y ago
    Wow, that's wild to read. In comparison (and complete lack of contrast) to: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSJavaSDK/latest/javadoc/com/amazonaws/services/s3/AmazonS3ClientBuilder.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSJavaSDK/latest/javadoc/com/am...
    - deanCommie 6y ago
      What the hell kind of comparison is that? You linked a human-doc-writer written documentation to auto-generated Java SDK documentation...
mumblemumble 6y ago
I would guess that it doesn't work out that way. The Apache license has the patent clause, but it doesn't have a comparable "API copyright" clause. Though perhaps another consequence of an Oracle win is that we end up with an Apache3 license.
- jeremyjh 6y ago
  They've given a license to use and extend the copy-written software, including its method signatures.
  - pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
    It's copyright, not copywrite https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/copywrite https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/copywrite
  - mumblemumble 6y ago
    Oracle has done that, too. They release the full JDK under the GPL. The law around these sorts of things can get pretty hair-splitty. My guess is that the situation here is that Amazon client libraries and OpenJDK are distributed with a license to create derivative works that are based on their respective products, but that these licenses do not necessarily grant a license to create a new thing that works the same out of whole cloth. Should Oracle win the case, that would seem to imply that the Court believes they do not. Alternatively, the fact that open source licenses do not appear to have even been brought up in the course of these hearings would perhaps imply that the existence of open source libraries that implement these APIs is legally irrelevant.
    - jeremyjh 6y ago
      OpenJDK did not exist when Android was developed and initially released. Google did move to using it 2016 and may not have liability after that date.
      - syshum 6y ago
akerro 6y ago
Using a client is different than reimplementing compatible classes.
- extropy 6y ago
  The idea is that a client generally contains a copy of the API (it's calling it so it should). So you get a copy of the API with Apache license and are free to build your own implementation of it.
Thaxll 6y ago
To me it's not related, the SDK is under the apache licence but it's just an implementation of the API, the API itself is not defined or under the copyright of that SDK.

returningfory2 6y ago

Yeah, I think this is what Digital Ocean does? I believe the AWS S3 Python library works out of the box for DO.

jacobr1 6y ago

This has already happened to an extent. For example, there are bunch of API compatible implementations of s3, both oss and proprietary and most of them suggest you use the AWS sdk as a client.

marksomnian 6y ago
Including, amusingly enough, Oracle: https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/en-us/iaas/Content/Object/Tasks/s3compatibleapi.htm https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/en-us/iaas/Content/Object/Task...
- arh68 6y ago
  Wow, that's wild to read. In comparison (and complete lack of contrast) to: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSJavaSDK/latest/javadoc/com/amazonaws/services/s3/AmazonS3ClientBuilder.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSJavaSDK/latest/javadoc/com/am...
  - deanCommie 6y ago
    What the hell kind of comparison is that? You linked a human-doc-writer written documentation to auto-generated Java SDK documentation...

mumblemumble 6y ago

I would guess that it doesn't work out that way. The Apache license has the patent clause, but it doesn't have a comparable "API copyright" clause. Though perhaps another consequence of an Oracle win is that we end up with an Apache3 license.

jeremyjh 6y ago
They've given a license to use and extend the copy-written software, including its method signatures.
- pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
  It's copyright, not copywrite https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/copywrite https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/copywrite
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  Oracle has done that, too. They release the full JDK under the GPL. The law around these sorts of things can get pretty hair-splitty. My guess is that the situation here is that Amazon client libraries and OpenJDK are distributed with a license to create derivative works that are based on their respective products, but that these licenses do not necessarily grant a license to create a new thing that works the same out of whole cloth. Should Oracle win the case, that would seem to imply that the Court believes they do not. Alternatively, the fact that open source licenses do not appear to have even been brought up in the course of these hearings would perhaps imply that the existence of open source libraries that implement these APIs is legally irrelevant.
  - jeremyjh 6y ago
    OpenJDK did not exist when Android was developed and initially released. Google did move to using it 2016 and may not have liability after that date.
    - syshum 6y ago

akerro 6y ago

Using a client is different than reimplementing compatible classes.

extropy 6y ago
The idea is that a client generally contains a copy of the API (it's calling it so it should). So you get a copy of the API with Apache license and are free to build your own implementation of it.

Thaxll 6y ago

To me it's not related, the SDK is under the apache licence but it's just an implementation of the API, the API itself is not defined or under the copyright of that SDK.