8 ms·

I just realized - what does the Google vs Oracle ruling mean for ReactOS, and also Wine?

kube-system 6y ago
It doesn't mean anything yet because it hasn't been decided :) But it seems that an Oracle win would mean you couldn't implement any interfaces compatible with another piece of software without a license.
- kemonocode 6y ago
  In practice I don't see too many companies going full on litigious towards small players or end users- especially not Microsoft as many of their moves as of late hinge on interoperability. But it'd be certainly a worry as it'd be very much weaponized when it comes to big companies against each other, which of course will affect the end user one way or another.
  - sushicalculus 6y ago
    > In practice I don't see too many companies going full on litigious towards small players or end users We should introduce you to Oracle. This is exactly what they do. They audit their own customers in a very hostile way. Never underestimate a company in decline, as they grasp for ways to increase revenues and profits for shareholders (or founders)
  - bdcravens 6y ago
    As long as ReactOS doesn’t challenge their enterprise revenue, they should be fine.
  - croes 6y ago
    You just don't read about it if small players are involved. They don't have the media attention and the money, they just vanish.
  - ckocagil 6y ago
    Nothing prevents patent trolls from becoming copyright trolls overnight: acquire companies, sue everyone.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
The lack of commercial purpose of ReactOS (and Wine) and it's primary goal of interoperability, plus the fact that it doesn't really damage the value of the original Windows platform, means it's probably a very easy case of fair use. Android isn't fair use, is a massive commercial endeavour, and has obliterated the value of mobile Java, while breaking interoperability with Java. Oracle winning the case will not be kind to stolen platforms by tech giants.
- zerocrates 6y ago
  Do you really think there'd still be a place for mobile Java now in the absence of Android? Seems pretty unlikely to me.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    The state of the market today isn't the point: It obliterated mobile Java when Google infringed. Your question actually reinforces Oracle's claim that they were irreparably harmed by Google's infringement; there's no way to undo what has been done, and substantial damage compensation is necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors is a really good read for the basic understanding of how fair use should be applied. Factor four is what we're discussing here, which the Supreme Court labeled the "most important" factor.
    - croes 6y ago
      You don't need fair use for something that isn't copyright worthy like an API. It's like claiming you copied a book if the chapter headlines are identical.
      - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        > You don't need fair use for something that isn't copyright worthy like an API. This is true. However, bear in mind, Google argued that 1. APIs weren't copyrightable and 2. that if they were, their usage was fair. In this ten year court nightmare, they've lost fair use and of course, are likely about to lose on copyrightability. If the Supreme Court rules for Oracle, Android is copyright-infringing, it's already failed on the fair use claim. But most non-commercial projects would still have a fairly compelling case for fair use. Note that your "copied a book" analogy is poor for a bunch of reasons: Chapter headlines... are copyrightable. (Though the "amount of work copied" is a fair use pillar, so it's possible to lift chapter headlines fairly.) And it fails to account for the functional nature of APIs which is under debate for copyrightability.
kmeisthax 6y ago
We don't know. There are several substantiative questions of law and both parties' inability to give the court a clear picture of what an API is may result in the case not actually being decided. There's two questions up in the air with the case: 1. Whether or not you can claim copyright over the name of a function plus the combination of it's input types (an "API"). 2. Whether or not copying APIs can constitute fair use in the context of building a new platform using an existing language. The first one is likely the case generally; you can claim ownership over "structure, sequence, and organization" just as well as Flame can claim ownership over a descending minor ostanato with a specific timbre. Imagine if Microsoft decided to do an end run around the GPL by copying all of Linux's header files and just writing new implementations. (Wait, isn't that how we got BSD?) This is sort of like the computer science equivalent of tracing over someone else's art, and we probably should have some protection to prevent that. However, Java's APIs aren't just internal implementation details. They were made public to other developers specifically so that they would write programs that used them. Google argues that this makes them "methods of operation", which can't be copyrighted. If Microsoft makes Microsoft Excel accept macros from LibreOffice Calc by copying their menu bar shortcuts, that isn't protected and Microsoft is free to do that. (This has been adjudicated in court back in the 80s and is relevant precedent for the SCOTUS case.) The fair use question is a fallback argument if the court rules that copyright ownership applies to API declarations. This requires application of a four-factors test. Notably, Google argued that Android needed to be compatible with Java APIs, and that such activities should be fair use. Oracle counters that Android's implementation of those APIs were out of date and incompatible, so that fair use shouldn't apply. This also means that the Google/Oracle case might be ruled so narrowly that it doesn't affect WINE or ReactOS, or it could allow one and prohibit the other. After all, WINE is very narrowly focused on making Windows programs run on Linux, while ReactOS is trying to replace Windows entirely. One of the four fair use factors is the "market usurpation factor": what happens to the market for licenses if we allow people to do this under fair use and not pay for a license. If Win32 declarations can be considered copyrighted, then we could run into a situation where WINE using them to run Windows apps on Linux is NOT usurpation, but ReactOS using them to rewrite Windows IS. Not to mention GNU was made in the same way as ReactOS, but against UNIX rather than Windows. I have no idea if the people who own the corpse of the people who bought out Novell would be able to assert a copyright claim, though, as most UNIX APIs were standardized under POSIX. Android also largely doesn't use those APIs (just the Linux kernel itself) and they'd be ironically safe from an SCO-style attack in this scenario. Full disclosure: I am one of the developers of Ruffle (Free Software WASM/Rust Flash Player reimplementation) and I'm extremely paranoid of the project getting shut down by Adobe or HARMAN (the latter bought Adobe AIR). Ergo, I very much have material interest in the outcome of this case.

It doesn't mean anything yet because it hasn't been decided :) But it seems that an Oracle win would mean you couldn't implement any interfaces compatible with another piece of software without a license.

kemonocode 6y ago
In practice I don't see too many companies going full on litigious towards small players or end users- especially not Microsoft as many of their moves as of late hinge on interoperability. But it'd be certainly a worry as it'd be very much weaponized when it comes to big companies against each other, which of course will affect the end user one way or another.
- sushicalculus 6y ago
  > In practice I don't see too many companies going full on litigious towards small players or end users We should introduce you to Oracle. This is exactly what they do. They audit their own customers in a very hostile way. Never underestimate a company in decline, as they grasp for ways to increase revenues and profits for shareholders (or founders)
- bdcravens 6y ago
  As long as ReactOS doesn’t challenge their enterprise revenue, they should be fine.
- croes 6y ago
  You just don't read about it if small players are involved. They don't have the media attention and the money, they just vanish.
- ckocagil 6y ago
  Nothing prevents patent trolls from becoming copyright trolls overnight: acquire companies, sue everyone.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

The lack of commercial purpose of ReactOS (and Wine) and it's primary goal of interoperability, plus the fact that it doesn't really damage the value of the original Windows platform, means it's probably a very easy case of fair use. Android isn't fair use, is a massive commercial endeavour, and has obliterated the value of mobile Java, while breaking interoperability with Java. Oracle winning the case will not be kind to stolen platforms by tech giants.

zerocrates 6y ago
Do you really think there'd still be a place for mobile Java now in the absence of Android? Seems pretty unlikely to me.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  The state of the market today isn't the point: It obliterated mobile Java when Google infringed. Your question actually reinforces Oracle's claim that they were irreparably harmed by Google's infringement; there's no way to undo what has been done, and substantial damage compensation is necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors is a really good read for the basic understanding of how fair use should be applied. Factor four is what we're discussing here, which the Supreme Court labeled the "most important" factor.
  - croes 6y ago
    You don't need fair use for something that isn't copyright worthy like an API. It's like claiming you copied a book if the chapter headlines are identical.
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      > You don't need fair use for something that isn't copyright worthy like an API. This is true. However, bear in mind, Google argued that 1. APIs weren't copyrightable and 2. that if they were, their usage was fair. In this ten year court nightmare, they've lost fair use and of course, are likely about to lose on copyrightability. If the Supreme Court rules for Oracle, Android is copyright-infringing, it's already failed on the fair use claim. But most non-commercial projects would still have a fairly compelling case for fair use. Note that your "copied a book" analogy is poor for a bunch of reasons: Chapter headlines... are copyrightable. (Though the "amount of work copied" is a fair use pillar, so it's possible to lift chapter headlines fairly.) And it fails to account for the functional nature of APIs which is under debate for copyrightability.

kmeisthax 6y ago

We don't know. There are several substantiative questions of law and both parties' inability to give the court a clear picture of what an API is may result in the case not actually being decided. There's two questions up in the air with the case: 1. Whether or not you can claim copyright over the name of a function plus the combination of it's input types (an "API"). 2. Whether or not copying APIs can constitute fair use in the context of building a new platform using an existing language. The first one is likely the case generally; you can claim ownership over "structure, sequence, and organization" just as well as Flame can claim ownership over a descending minor ostanato with a specific timbre. Imagine if Microsoft decided to do an end run around the GPL by copying all of Linux's header files and just writing new implementations. (Wait, isn't that how we got BSD?) This is sort of like the computer science equivalent of tracing over someone else's art, and we probably should have some protection to prevent that. However, Java's APIs aren't just internal implementation details. They were made public to other developers specifically so that they would write programs that used them. Google argues that this makes them "methods of operation", which can't be copyrighted. If Microsoft makes Microsoft Excel accept macros from LibreOffice Calc by copying their menu bar shortcuts, that isn't protected and Microsoft is free to do that. (This has been adjudicated in court back in the 80s and is relevant precedent for the SCOTUS case.) The fair use question is a fallback argument if the court rules that copyright ownership applies to API declarations. This requires application of a four-factors test. Notably, Google argued that Android needed to be compatible with Java APIs, and that such activities should be fair use. Oracle counters that Android's implementation of those APIs were out of date and incompatible, so that fair use shouldn't apply. This also means that the Google/Oracle case might be ruled so narrowly that it doesn't affect WINE or ReactOS, or it could allow one and prohibit the other. After all, WINE is very narrowly focused on making Windows programs run on Linux, while ReactOS is trying to replace Windows entirely. One of the four fair use factors is the "market usurpation factor": what happens to the market for licenses if we allow people to do this under fair use and not pay for a license. If Win32 declarations can be considered copyrighted, then we could run into a situation where WINE using them to run Windows apps on Linux is NOT usurpation, but ReactOS using them to rewrite Windows IS. Not to mention GNU was made in the same way as ReactOS, but against UNIX rather than Windows. I have no idea if the people who own the corpse of the people who bought out Novell would be able to assert a copyright claim, though, as most UNIX APIs were standardized under POSIX. Android also largely doesn't use those APIs (just the Linux kernel itself) and they'd be ironically safe from an SCO-style attack in this scenario. Full disclosure: I am one of the developers of Ruffle (Free Software WASM/Rust Flash Player reimplementation) and I'm extremely paranoid of the project getting shut down by Adobe or HARMAN (the latter bought Adobe AIR). Ergo, I very much have material interest in the outcome of this case.