4 ms·

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 perha

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
      Andriod was First released in Sept 2008, OpenJDK was first released May 2007...
      - mumblemumble 6y ago
        Perhaps more legally relevant, Android's first public beta dropped in late 2007. But still, technically after OpenJDK's release.
MaxBarraclough 6y ago
I don't follow. If someone can determine the API by referring to code released under the Apache licence, what copyrights could they be infringing by building a different implementation of the API using the Apache-licensed code as a reference? For a copyright infringement to have taken place, there generally needs to be an unauthorised instance of recording or of duplication, of some copyrighted work. I put generally as, I believe, precisely recreating someone else's photo can still count as an infringement of their copyrights, despite that you haven't copied the image itself in the usual sense of making duplicates. Singing someone else's song can also infringe on their copyrights over the song. I don't think this would apply here though. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I could well be missing something obvious.)
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  The same sort of API copyright that Oracle is trying to establish in this case. How things actually shake out would depend a lot on the specifics of the Court's ruling, and I am not a lawyer either. But, if the court rules that Oracle owns a copyright to the Java APIs, and that this means they can prevent others from implementing their own versions of those APIs, and this right remains in effect even though they release a full implementation of them under GPLv2, then I can't see any particular reason to expect that things would work differently for Amazon's APIs and Apache2.
  - johncolanduoni 6y ago
    The difference is that the way Google used the APIs is not compatible with code use under the GPLv2 (in particular, they didn’t GPLv2 license it). If the original code implementing the APIs is Apache licensed however, you have a very free hand in changing the original code so you probably wouldn’t care about your working being considered a derivative of it. I’m not sure that absolves you categorically but it definitely sounds like a better position to be in.
IshKebab 6y ago
But the API must be defined in the client library, and that has been released under an open source 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
    Andriod was First released in Sept 2008, OpenJDK was first released May 2007...
    - mumblemumble 6y ago
      Perhaps more legally relevant, Android's first public beta dropped in late 2007. But still, technically after OpenJDK's release.

MaxBarraclough 6y ago

I don't follow. If someone can determine the API by referring to code released under the Apache licence, what copyrights could they be infringing by building a different implementation of the API using the Apache-licensed code as a reference? For a copyright infringement to have taken place, there generally needs to be an unauthorised instance of recording or of duplication, of some copyrighted work. I put generally as, I believe, precisely recreating someone else's photo can still count as an infringement of their copyrights, despite that you haven't copied the image itself in the usual sense of making duplicates. Singing someone else's song can also infringe on their copyrights over the song. I don't think this would apply here though. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I could well be missing something obvious.)

mumblemumble 6y ago
The same sort of API copyright that Oracle is trying to establish in this case. How things actually shake out would depend a lot on the specifics of the Court's ruling, and I am not a lawyer either. But, if the court rules that Oracle owns a copyright to the Java APIs, and that this means they can prevent others from implementing their own versions of those APIs, and this right remains in effect even though they release a full implementation of them under GPLv2, then I can't see any particular reason to expect that things would work differently for Amazon's APIs and Apache2.
- johncolanduoni 6y ago
  The difference is that the way Google used the APIs is not compatible with code use under the GPLv2 (in particular, they didn’t GPLv2 license it). If the original code implementing the APIs is Apache licensed however, you have a very free hand in changing the original code so you probably wouldn’t care about your working being considered a derivative of it. I’m not sure that absolves you categorically but it definitely sounds like a better position to be in.

IshKebab 6y ago

But the API must be defined in the client library, and that has been released under an open source license.