58 ms·

I don't think either of those things are true. First, SQL is a standardized language. It's not copyrighted, and has an ISO standard. Anybody can implement a

I don't think either of those things are true. First, SQL is a standardized language. It's not copyrighted, and has an ISO standard. Anybody can implement a SQL database and not run into any copyright problems. They might run into problems if they implemented proprietary Oracle extensions in their new DB, but even that seems unlikely. Next, even if APIs are copyrightable, it doesn't imply Oracle would have to release anything as open source. For one, I'm not sure any open source projects would sue over it. And even if they did, Oracle could simply stop distributing the software.

cma 13y ago
>First, SQL is a standardized language. It's not copyrighted, and has an ISO standard. Pre-standard implementations had copyrights. Under this ruling the standard itself would violate those. There might be some sort of promissory estoppel type thing if all of the owners of the implementations also participated in the standardization process. In the US post-1978 works don't even have to be registered to receive copyright protection--good luck tracking every significant bit of API lineage down and not getting hit by a troll that acquired the assets of some dinky company.
haberman 13y ago
> SQL is a standardized language What does being standardized have to do with it? MP3 and h.264 are standardized, that doesn't prevent them from being heavily patented. Likewise being standardized wouldn't prevent an API from being copyrighted. > It's not copyrighted If APIs were copyrightable, they would automatically be copyrighted when they were written down in a fixed form. That's the way that copyright works; you don't have to take special action to copyright something, it is automatically copyrighted when you create it. Registering a copyright puts you in a stronger position legally but it is not required to actually have a copyright. See the danger now? If APIs were copyrightable, every API would automatically be copyrighted. Implementing an existing API would be copyright infringement unless you had a license.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  Just to reinforce your point: Standard docs are already copyrighted. SCSI specs and some ITU specs aren't free. Seems that the more niche the standard goes, the more expensive it gets. (Although if you write your own standard doc based off an implementation's actions, that should be OK, right?)
belgianguy 13y ago
In the late 1970s, Relational Software, Inc. (now Oracle Corporation) saw the potential of the concepts described by Codd, Chamberlin, and Boyce and developed their own SQL-based RDBMS with aspirations of selling it to the U.S. Navy, Central Intelligence Agency, and other U.S. government agencies. ... SQL became a standard of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in 1986, and of the International Organization for Standards (ISO) in 1987. So does time of infringement matter in copyright cases? Is the fact that it became an ISO standard later relevant? Unless Oracle was psychic, they could not have foreseen SQL becoming standardized, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL

cma 13y ago

>First, SQL is a standardized language. It's not copyrighted, and has an ISO standard. Pre-standard implementations had copyrights. Under this ruling the standard itself would violate those. There might be some sort of promissory estoppel type thing if all of the owners of the implementations also participated in the standardization process. In the US post-1978 works don't even have to be registered to receive copyright protection--good luck tracking every significant bit of API lineage down and not getting hit by a troll that acquired the assets of some dinky company.

haberman 13y ago

> SQL is a standardized language What does being standardized have to do with it? MP3 and h.264 are standardized, that doesn't prevent them from being heavily patented. Likewise being standardized wouldn't prevent an API from being copyrighted. > It's not copyrighted If APIs were copyrightable, they would automatically be copyrighted when they were written down in a fixed form. That's the way that copyright works; you don't have to take special action to copyright something, it is automatically copyrighted when you create it. Registering a copyright puts you in a stronger position legally but it is not required to actually have a copyright. See the danger now? If APIs were copyrightable, every API would automatically be copyrighted. Implementing an existing API would be copyright infringement unless you had a license.

MichaelGG 13y ago
Just to reinforce your point: Standard docs are already copyrighted. SCSI specs and some ITU specs aren't free. Seems that the more niche the standard goes, the more expensive it gets. (Although if you write your own standard doc based off an implementation's actions, that should be OK, right?)

belgianguy 13y ago

In the late 1970s, Relational Software, Inc. (now Oracle Corporation) saw the potential of the concepts described by Codd, Chamberlin, and Boyce and developed their own SQL-based RDBMS with aspirations of selling it to the U.S. Navy, Central Intelligence Agency, and other U.S. government agencies. ... SQL became a standard of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in 1986, and of the International Organization for Standards (ISO) in 1987. So does time of infringement matter in copyright cases? Is the fact that it became an ISO standard later relevant? Unless Oracle was psychic, they could not have foreseen SQL becoming standardized, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL