3 ms·

Not all lines of code are made equal under the law. If they were then Oracle would have a copyright on the Java API. Fortunately they do not. So, no. You can i

Not all lines of code are made equal under the law. If they were then Oracle would have a copyright on the Java API. Fortunately they do not. So, no. You can in fact "steal" several lines of code and use them to make money and be legally clean as a whistle. It isn't that clear cut.

SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago
Oracle DOES have a copyright on the Java API. Google's use of it was found to be fair use, but the SCOTUS did rule that it was copyright infringement. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
- int_19h 4y ago
  The SCOTUS decision in Oracle v. Google didn't rule on API copyrightability. It merely assumed that the code in question is copyrightable, then showed how it's still fair use even if so, thus making the first question irrelevant to the decision. And this is very much intentional; they spell it all out: "Google’s petition for certiorari poses two questions. The first asks whether Java’s API is copyrightable. It asks us to examine two of the statutory provisions just mentioned, one that permits copyrighting computer programs and the other that forbids copyrighting, e.g., “process[es],” “system[s],” and “method[s] of operation.” Google believes that the API’s declaring code and organization fall into these latter categories and are expressly excluded from copyright protection. The second question asks us to determine whether Google’s use of the API was a “fair use.” Google believes that it was. A holding for Google on either question presented would dispense with Oracle’s copyright claims. Given the rapidly changing technological, economic, and business-related circumstances, we believe we should not answer more than is necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. We shall assume, but purely for argument’s sake, that the entire Sun Java API falls within the definition of that which can be copyrighted. We shall ask instead whether Google’s use of part of that API was a “fair use.” Unlike the Federal Circuit, we conclude that it was."
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    The tragic irony here is that the understanding of copyright that those that do not like Copilot put forth would indeed make things like Java's API copyrightable and to the obvious detriment of innovation.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      I don't see how this is related. The question wrt Copilot can be distilled down to "what constitutes a derived work", but there's no doubt that the original source code that Copilot was trained on is copyrightable. Conversely, with Java APIs, there was no doubt that Google's use of them produced a derived work - the question was whether the original is copyrightable and/or whether that is fair use.
- bdowling 4y ago
  > the SCOTUS did rule that it was copyright infringement. In the US, "[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work ... is not an infringement of copyright." (17 USC 107, Oracle at 14). Whether there is a difference between a finding of no infringement or infringement with no liability is academic. Practically, the copyright on the Java API is commercially worthless because after Oracle anyone may freely copy any and all of it and use it to compete with its creator. Any other software vendor who thinks it has platform "lock in" because its customers built to their API should take notice. (e.g., Amazon AWS).

SAI_Peregrinus 4y ago

Oracle DOES have a copyright on the Java API. Google's use of it was found to be fair use, but the SCOTUS did rule that it was copyright infringement. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf

int_19h 4y ago
The SCOTUS decision in Oracle v. Google didn't rule on API copyrightability. It merely assumed that the code in question is copyrightable, then showed how it's still fair use even if so, thus making the first question irrelevant to the decision. And this is very much intentional; they spell it all out: "Google’s petition for certiorari poses two questions. The first asks whether Java’s API is copyrightable. It asks us to examine two of the statutory provisions just mentioned, one that permits copyrighting computer programs and the other that forbids copyrighting, e.g., “process[es],” “system[s],” and “method[s] of operation.” Google believes that the API’s declaring code and organization fall into these latter categories and are expressly excluded from copyright protection. The second question asks us to determine whether Google’s use of the API was a “fair use.” Google believes that it was. A holding for Google on either question presented would dispense with Oracle’s copyright claims. Given the rapidly changing technological, economic, and business-related circumstances, we believe we should not answer more than is necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute. We shall assume, but purely for argument’s sake, that the entire Sun Java API falls within the definition of that which can be copyrighted. We shall ask instead whether Google’s use of part of that API was a “fair use.” Unlike the Federal Circuit, we conclude that it was."
- williamcotton 4y ago
  The tragic irony here is that the understanding of copyright that those that do not like Copilot put forth would indeed make things like Java's API copyrightable and to the obvious detriment of innovation.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    I don't see how this is related. The question wrt Copilot can be distilled down to "what constitutes a derived work", but there's no doubt that the original source code that Copilot was trained on is copyrightable. Conversely, with Java APIs, there was no doubt that Google's use of them produced a derived work - the question was whether the original is copyrightable and/or whether that is fair use.
bdowling 4y ago
> the SCOTUS did rule that it was copyright infringement. In the US, "[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work ... is not an infringement of copyright." (17 USC 107, Oracle at 14). Whether there is a difference between a finding of no infringement or infringement with no liability is academic. Practically, the copyright on the Java API is commercially worthless because after Oracle anyone may freely copy any and all of it and use it to compete with its creator. Any other software vendor who thinks it has platform "lock in" because its customers built to their API should take notice. (e.g., Amazon AWS).