3 ms·
The case was subject to a lot of FUD and misunderstanding. This is one of them. > The supreme court ruled[0] that copyright (and thus copyleft?) does not apply
by hnfong 3y ago
The case was subject to a lot of FUD and misunderstanding. This is one of them.
> The supreme court ruled[0] that copyright (and thus copyleft?) does not apply to APIs.
That is what they specifically stated was not the case.
The text of Wikipedia (as of now) says:
Breyer concluded that "we hold that the copying here at issue nonetheless constituted a fair use. Hence, Google's copying did not violate the copyright law."[77] This conclusion rendered the need to evaluate the copyright of the API unnecessary.[79]
But let's look at the original Supreme Court decision (this is just the beginning first paragraph):
""" JUSTICE BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court. Oracle America, Inc., is the current owner of a copyright in Java SE, a computer program that uses the popular Java computer programming language. Google, without permission, has copied a portion of that program, a portion that enables a programmer to call up prewritten software that, together with the computer’s hardware, will carry out a large number of specific tasks. The lower courts have considered (1) whether Java SE’s owner could copyright the portion that Google copied, and (2) if so, whether Google’s copying nonetheless constituted a “fair use” of that material, thereby freeing Google from copyright liability. The Federal Circuit held in Oracle’s favor (i.e., that the portion is copyrightable and Google’s copying did not constitute a “fair use”). In reviewing that decision, we assume, for argument’s sake, that the material was copyrightable. But we hold that the copying here at issue nonetheless constituted a fair use. Hence, Google’s copying did not violate the copyright law.""" (emphasis mine)
The Supreme Court basically weaseled out of their responsibility of deciding the law (of whether APIs are copyrightable). The usual logic is to consider fair use after determining that a subject matter is subject to copyright. Pretty sure no lawyer or judge just jumps to fair use without first considering copyright. Anyway. In all fairness it was a difficult case.
FWIW, it is arguable from an academic perspective that since the Supreme Court only reversed the decision on fair use but did not reverse the decision on copyrightability of APIs, the decision of the lower court stands.
- evanjrowley 3y agoThanks for your insightful comment. It seems like the hypothetical question of whether this Maestro project is legally dubious hinges upon whether it counts as fair use of Linux APIs and code, which are copyrighted by various Linux contributors and provided under the terms of GPLv2. This makes me wonder, what license was Java provided under, and how was Google's decidedly fair use copying of Java APIs not in violation of it? Did any of the court proceedings address this? Furthermore, what are legally defensible types of fair use redistributions of GPLv2 code that contradict the license terms? Does it include redistributions of portions of GLPv2 code under a different license that contradicts GPLv2? How about the Linux ABI? The fair use question may take precedent over whether or not Maestro was written from scratch.
- hnfong 3y ago> what license was Java provided under In addition to other commercial licenses, Java was released under GPLv2. Yes, the Oracle v Google case was technically a GPL case. (The tech community talks a lot about GPL being tested in court, but somehow often overlooks this one as a supreme court decision on software covered by GPL... even though the GPL here does not matter for the decision at all) There are parts of the Java API that was not released under the GPL, and I don't know whether Google copied those too, but it doesn't really matter that much here. > how was Google's decidedly fair use copying of Java APIs not in violation of it? Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement for the jurisdictions that recognize it. Fun fact: if Oracle sued Google about android in jurisdictions that did not recognize fair use, it could be fun... I don't really know why they didn't do that already. > Furthermore, what are legally defensible types of fair use redistributions of GPLv2 code that contradict the license terms? This requires a comprehensive review of the copyright law regime. Get a lawyer (or a law degree) for that...
- evanjrowley 3y agoI was not expecting it to be a GPL case. That's incredible. I wouldn't be able to sleep without more details about the licences at play here, so I found this helpful article that satisfied my curiosity: http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/12/google-switches-to-open-source-license.html?m=1 http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/12/google-switches-to-open-s...
- hnfong 3y agoFWIW, fosspatents was one of the first commentators to side with Oracle on the claim that APIs are copyrightable (according to existing copyright law). The tech community at large seemed to think fosspatents was a shill blog hired by Oracle for propaganda. There's a lot of info about the case on the blog too, since the legal dispute spanned many years. It's also useful to note here that the FSF's stance that software using GPL libraries need to be GPLed (i.e. the "viral" mechanism) was largely based on the idea that APIs are copyrightable and software that uses these APIs (by copying their definitions during compile and linking phase) need permission to do so. You've probably realized this by now, since it is analogous to the kernel syscall issue. It was very interesting how the community generally accepted the FSF's stance but vehemently opposed Oracle's (hint: they are the same w.r.t. to API copyrightability). People these days are beginning to realize Google could be the asshole too (not that Oracle has ever been the innocent one), so this stuff is probably less "controversial". But it was a very contentious issue back then.