3 ms·

> 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

by 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 ago
I 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 ago
  FWIW, 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.

by hnfong 3y ago

evanjrowley 3y ago

I 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 ago
FWIW, 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.