3 ms·

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

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.

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.