4 ms·

The claims that have never been tested in court here aren't part of the license, but rather commentary as to what constitutes a derivative work under copyright

The claims that have never been tested in court here aren't part of the license, but rather commentary as to what constitutes a derivative work under copyright law. If true, they would affect the legality of a number of practices that apparently do not require distributing or modifying licensed components or accepting the license at all. If loading and running a program with dynamically linked modules with incompatible licenses creates a legally prohibited derivative work in memory, that is a reasonable claim that the author copyright holders of some of the code could pursue the users in question about. That is not what is controversial though. The controversial claim is that by merely making a module that is link or use compatible with another module a legally prohibited derivative work has been created. Not by incorporating inline code, or copying the structure, sequence, or organization of another module, but merely by making something that is compatible in the abstract. Where is the legal basis for this claim? It is apparently nowhere, little more than wishful thinking.

hnfong 5y ago
> commentary as to what constitutes a derivative work under copyright law That's part of my point actually. The question of API copyrightability in the Java case has a lot to do with whether copying APIs/ABIs in the code (whether from headers or binary symbol tables) is copyright infringement. That said, it's unfortunately true that the conclusion is far from clear. (Sidenote -- given that the Supreme Court dodged the question, does it mean that the Court of Appeals decisions still hold? [I'm not familiar with the US legal system])
- butlerm 5y ago
  The Supreme Court conclusively established that Google's use of the APIs was fair use under copyright law, so they did not need to reach the underlying question. I believe it would be safe to conclude that API descriptions such as header files are protected by copyright even in their essentials, that fair use is necessary to reproduce them without a license, and that Congress would need to act to create a more reliable exemption for that sort of thing. Court of Appeals decisions are only binding precedents within the corresponding regions, but they generally have persuasive force throughout the country until and unless the Supreme Court overrules them.
  - hnfong 5y ago
    Pretty sure the way they teach law students is to first determine whether a work is covered by copyright before going on to fair use... :D But then, it's the Supreme Court so nobody's gonna fail their papers...

hnfong 5y ago

> commentary as to what constitutes a derivative work under copyright law That's part of my point actually. The question of API copyrightability in the Java case has a lot to do with whether copying APIs/ABIs in the code (whether from headers or binary symbol tables) is copyright infringement. That said, it's unfortunately true that the conclusion is far from clear. (Sidenote -- given that the Supreme Court dodged the question, does it mean that the Court of Appeals decisions still hold? [I'm not familiar with the US legal system])

butlerm 5y ago
The Supreme Court conclusively established that Google's use of the APIs was fair use under copyright law, so they did not need to reach the underlying question. I believe it would be safe to conclude that API descriptions such as header files are protected by copyright even in their essentials, that fair use is necessary to reproduce them without a license, and that Congress would need to act to create a more reliable exemption for that sort of thing. Court of Appeals decisions are only binding precedents within the corresponding regions, but they generally have persuasive force throughout the country until and unless the Supreme Court overrules them.
- hnfong 5y ago
  Pretty sure the way they teach law students is to first determine whether a work is covered by copyright before going on to fair use... :D But then, it's the Supreme Court so nobody's gonna fail their papers...