4 ms·

I'm so relieved. This could have forced such dramatic changes in how we develop software. And any other decision would have been a crippling blow to FLOS softwa

by esarbe 6y ago

I'm so relieved. This could have forced such dramatic changes in how we develop software. And any other decision would have been a crippling blow to FLOS software. Now if we only could get the SC to invalidate software patents in general.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
This is a large scale defeat of the GPL and dual licensing, so I'm not sure how this could be anything but a sad day for sustainable open source development. If you're big enough and have enough lawyers, there's no reason to license software you want to build on.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  How so?
- icegreentea2 6y ago
  How does this ruling interact with GPL?
  - billsix 6y ago
    Perhaps this https://github.com/JoshCheek/clisp/blob/master/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL https://github.com/JoshCheek/clisp/blob/master/doc/Why-CLISP...
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      That's a different situation though. You're then distributing something intended to link with readline -- not just implementing its API yourself but using its entire original implementation. What you could perhaps do is create your own implementation of the readline API distributed under a different license and then claim your program is intended to link against that, but how would you claim that if no such implementation exists? Whereas if you have to write your own readline implementation in order to use it then you still end up with a large incentive to avoid that by releasing your work under the GPL instead.
- izacus 6y ago
  Can you explain?
- bogwog 6y ago
  > This is a large scale defeat of the GPL and dual licensing Can you elaborate on that? What does this have to do with those thing?
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Google had the option to use the OpenJDK and make Android a GPL-based platform. They did not want to. They could've, and tried to, negotiate a separate license, but simply decided to copy what they wanted instead, relying on their legal team to protect them.
    - simonh 6y ago
      I'm confused how not using the GPL version makes this relevant to the GPL.
      - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        Dual licensing is a common reason to GPL your code: Letting people have and use the source under restricted terms, and paying for an enterprise license otherwise. If Google can steal the code from the GPL version and then just not obey the license or pay for an enterprise license, dual licensing is dead and no business will open source their code under a dual licensing model.
        esarbe 6y ago
        Google did not steal code. Dual licensing is not a reason but a practice. Unlicensed use of code is still unlicensed and punishable by the terms of the license. Dual licensing still exists and will continue existing. Please.
    - curt15 6y ago
      Google has been using OpenJDK since Android 7.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  On the other hand, it's the sort of ruling that could make companies less skittish about using GPL software.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Solely because the GPL may now be so weak nobody is worried about enforcement. If Google can so blatantly create a monopoly scale business by ripping off something instead of complying with the license or licensing it separately, there is no teeth to the GPL at all, and releasing your business' code under GPL is an existential risk. They might use the GPL software, but feel no compunction to either open source their own modifications nor pay for an enterprise license.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      Except that Google only copied the API, so how does that apply to anyone doing more than that? For that matter, how does that have anything to do with the GPL at all? If you distribute your software under a proprietary license instead, how does that affect whether anyone can reimplement your API? If somebody wants your implementation then they get it under your license. If all they want is their own implementation of your API then your license doesn't matter, does it?
      - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
        From a statutory standpoint, there is no difference between the API and the code in general, which the dissenting opinion highlights. So if fair use is granted for theft of copylefted code in a non-copyleft manner, it doesn't matter heavily whether that was "declaring code" or "implementing code". This ruling doesn't change that APIs are copyrightable code.
        esarbe 6y ago
        The dissenting opinion is stupid. Thomas may be a bad justice, but he has even less of a clue about software devolopment. Of course there is a difference between an API and the code in general. This decision sidestepped the question of whether APIs are copyrightable or not by declaring that this particular instance was fair use. Reimplementing interfaces has always been fair-use, they are definitions. Re-Implementation of these interfaces has been a cornerstone of FOSS since its very beginning. > So if fair use is granted for theft of copylefted code in a non-copyleft manner, it doesn't matter heavily whether that was "declaring code" or "implementing code". I don't think these words mean what you think they mean. There was no theft and of course there is a difference between declaring code and implementing code. Shesh...
- esarbe 6y ago
  I don't see how this case has anything to do with GPL.

by esarbe 6y ago

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

This is a large scale defeat of the GPL and dual licensing, so I'm not sure how this could be anything but a sad day for sustainable open source development. If you're big enough and have enough lawyers, there's no reason to license software you want to build on.

macspoofing 6y ago
How so?
icegreentea2 6y ago
How does this ruling interact with GPL?
- billsix 6y ago
  Perhaps this https://github.com/JoshCheek/clisp/blob/master/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL https://github.com/JoshCheek/clisp/blob/master/doc/Why-CLISP...
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    That's a different situation though. You're then distributing something intended to link with readline -- not just implementing its API yourself but using its entire original implementation. What you could perhaps do is create your own implementation of the readline API distributed under a different license and then claim your program is intended to link against that, but how would you claim that if no such implementation exists? Whereas if you have to write your own readline implementation in order to use it then you still end up with a large incentive to avoid that by releasing your work under the GPL instead.
izacus 6y ago
Can you explain?
bogwog 6y ago
> This is a large scale defeat of the GPL and dual licensing Can you elaborate on that? What does this have to do with those thing?
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Google had the option to use the OpenJDK and make Android a GPL-based platform. They did not want to. They could've, and tried to, negotiate a separate license, but simply decided to copy what they wanted instead, relying on their legal team to protect them.
  - simonh 6y ago
    I'm confused how not using the GPL version makes this relevant to the GPL.
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      Dual licensing is a common reason to GPL your code: Letting people have and use the source under restricted terms, and paying for an enterprise license otherwise. If Google can steal the code from the GPL version and then just not obey the license or pay for an enterprise license, dual licensing is dead and no business will open source their code under a dual licensing model.
      - esarbe 6y ago
        Google did not steal code. Dual licensing is not a reason but a practice. Unlicensed use of code is still unlicensed and punishable by the terms of the license. Dual licensing still exists and will continue existing. Please.
  - curt15 6y ago
    Google has been using OpenJDK since Android 7.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
On the other hand, it's the sort of ruling that could make companies less skittish about using GPL software.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Solely because the GPL may now be so weak nobody is worried about enforcement. If Google can so blatantly create a monopoly scale business by ripping off something instead of complying with the license or licensing it separately, there is no teeth to the GPL at all, and releasing your business' code under GPL is an existential risk. They might use the GPL software, but feel no compunction to either open source their own modifications nor pay for an enterprise license.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Except that Google only copied the API, so how does that apply to anyone doing more than that? For that matter, how does that have anything to do with the GPL at all? If you distribute your software under a proprietary license instead, how does that affect whether anyone can reimplement your API? If somebody wants your implementation then they get it under your license. If all they want is their own implementation of your API then your license doesn't matter, does it?
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      From a statutory standpoint, there is no difference between the API and the code in general, which the dissenting opinion highlights. So if fair use is granted for theft of copylefted code in a non-copyleft manner, it doesn't matter heavily whether that was "declaring code" or "implementing code". This ruling doesn't change that APIs are copyrightable code.
      - esarbe 6y ago
        The dissenting opinion is stupid. Thomas may be a bad justice, but he has even less of a clue about software devolopment. Of course there is a difference between an API and the code in general. This decision sidestepped the question of whether APIs are copyrightable or not by declaring that this particular instance was fair use. Reimplementing interfaces has always been fair-use, they are definitions. Re-Implementation of these interfaces has been a cornerstone of FOSS since its very beginning. > So if fair use is granted for theft of copylefted code in a non-copyleft manner, it doesn't matter heavily whether that was "declaring code" or "implementing code". I don't think these words mean what you think they mean. There was no theft and of course there is a difference between declaring code and implementing code. Shesh...
esarbe 6y ago
I don't see how this case has anything to do with GPL.