4 ms·

>* I hate seeing corporations brainwashing people into believeing they have good intentions. They don't.* No, man, they don't, they want to make, howyacallit,

by batista 15y ago

>* I hate seeing corporations brainwashing people into believeing they have good intentions. They don't.* No, man, they don't, they want to make, howyacallit, MONEY... (takes another bong hit), ... that's like hideous man. Well, joking aside, people aren't exactly taking Google's or Oracle's side, that just note that if Oracle wins it's bad news for everyone else too --despite whatever Google has done on the "wifi-gate" which is something completely different and beside the point in this discussion.

pron 15y ago
> if Oracle wins it's bad news for everyone else See, I'm not 100% sure about this. This could be Google spreading FUD to gain popular support (and, oh, how much the corporate heads at Google love to hear the crowds cheer them on - it makes them feel so of the people, for the people). IANAL, but couldn't the ruling say that simply implementing an API is fair use, but the way Google did it isn't (because it's not quite compatible, or because it's too compatible, or because it was done in bad faith after they'd failed to obtain a license, or for whatever reason)?
- batista 15y ago
  >See, I'm not 100% sure about this. This could be Google spreading FUD to gain popular support Well, the core of the case is if APIs are copyrightable or not. One could not care less about Google and still want a negative verdict on the matter. >IANAL, but couldn't the ruling say that simply implementing an API is fair use, but the way Google did it isn't (because it's not quite compatible, or because it's too compatible, or because it was done in bad faith after they'd failed to obtain a license, or for whatever reason) Even that would be bad. If they keep it as clear-cut as "APIs are not copyrightable, period" it's good for anyone. But if instead the courts muddies this to "APIs are not copyrightable, but you can be convicted if you copy them /in bad faith/not compatible enough/too compatible/whatever" then you can never really be sure. Whatever pulls the law towards a more restrictive interpretation of the APIs are not copyrightable is bad, because it sets a precedence (a, so called "Overton window"). PS. I don't much like the notion of "FUD". A corporation could be spreading lies, sure. But FUD smells too much like a relic of some GNU-zealot parlance from the 90's Microsoft Wars. To me it's as dated as "information superhighway", and doubly confusing.

by batista 15y ago

pron 15y ago

> if Oracle wins it's bad news for everyone else See, I'm not 100% sure about this. This could be Google spreading FUD to gain popular support (and, oh, how much the corporate heads at Google love to hear the crowds cheer them on - it makes them feel so of the people, for the people). IANAL, but couldn't the ruling say that simply implementing an API is fair use, but the way Google did it isn't (because it's not quite compatible, or because it's too compatible, or because it was done in bad faith after they'd failed to obtain a license, or for whatever reason)?

batista 15y ago
>See, I'm not 100% sure about this. This could be Google spreading FUD to gain popular support Well, the core of the case is if APIs are copyrightable or not. One could not care less about Google and still want a negative verdict on the matter. >IANAL, but couldn't the ruling say that simply implementing an API is fair use, but the way Google did it isn't (because it's not quite compatible, or because it's too compatible, or because it was done in bad faith after they'd failed to obtain a license, or for whatever reason) Even that would be bad. If they keep it as clear-cut as "APIs are not copyrightable, period" it's good for anyone. But if instead the courts muddies this to "APIs are not copyrightable, but you can be convicted if you copy them /in bad faith/not compatible enough/too compatible/whatever" then you can never really be sure. Whatever pulls the law towards a more restrictive interpretation of the APIs are not copyrightable is bad, because it sets a precedence (a, so called "Overton window"). PS. I don't much like the notion of "FUD". A corporation could be spreading lies, sure. But FUD smells too much like a relic of some GNU-zealot parlance from the 90's Microsoft Wars. To me it's as dated as "information superhighway", and doubly confusing.