3 ms·

That API's can be copyrighted doesn't mean that they can't be licensed, even freely. Tim Berners-Lee specifically granted permission and encouraged people to a

That API's can be copyrighted doesn't mean that they can't be licensed, even freely. Tim Berners-Lee specifically granted permission and encouraged people to adopt the WWW and create their own implementations. The W3C allows people to use its standards freely too (I'm not sure if there is a formal license grant or not). I don't know the status of CORBA but it is plausible that Sun/Oracle did sign agreements to adopt those specifications or that they were properly granted to all comers. Sum encouraged adoption of Java but was always specific and controlling of the distribution of runtimes and development kits. There were always licenses to agree to and real contracts available to people who wanted to develop their own Java platforms. They were quite strict on compatibility and what versions should be supported on what sorts of devices. They did release the JDK under the GPL. If Google had declared that they were using the GPL licensed code and were obeying the terms then they would have been entitled to proceed but they did not do that. They chose to develop the incompatible Dalvik to deliberately avoid Sun's contractual obligations but still benefit from the API design, documentation and existing developer experience expensively created by Sun.

haberman 13y ago
> Tim Berners-Lee specifically granted permission and encouraged people to adopt the WWW and create their own implementations. > I'm not sure if there is a formal license grant or not Where is the actual license? If formats are truly copyrightable, then general "encouragement" is not sufficient, you would need an explicit license, as every open source project has to allow copying of copyrighted code. Where is the actual document that says you can use HTML without infringing the copyright of Tim Berners-Lee or the W3C? The answer is that there isn't one, because no one thinks that formats themselves are copyrightable. > They chose to develop the incompatible Dalvik to deliberately avoid Sun's contractual obligations but still benefit from the API design, documentation and existing developer experience expensively created by Sun. Writing books about your technology does not mean you somehow own the experience that people gain from reading them. Spending a lot of money does not entitle you to exert however much control you feel you deserve. "Intellectual property" is a balance between the interests of creators and the interests of society. Giving first movers complete control over APIs, formats, and languages that become popular would enable a new wave of rent-seeking, very much like the patent trolling we see now.
- josephlord 13y ago
  > Where is the actual license? OK I decided to actually look it up. Here it is: http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/Policy.html http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/Policy.html "The definition of protocols such as HTTP and data formats such as HTML are in the public domain and may be freely used by anyone." So back when originally developed TBL seems to have felt the need to declare the public domain nature (implying to me that it was NOT an obvious default). > Writing books about your technology does not mean you somehow own the experience that people gain from reading them. I agree. The creation and design of the API is what allowed Sun to do that. The documentation is merely part of the why Google decided to copy Java and many of it's libraries rather than develop their own API or use a freely licensed one. [Edit: I didn't really mean to agree with "owning the experience" bit but it does give them some rights.] > Spending a lot of money does not entitle you to exert however much control you feel you deserve. Agree. Copyright gives specific rights and there are also fair use rights that should possibly be strengthened. > "Intellectual property" is a balance between the interests of creators and the interests of society. I largely agree. I would like it the case that I could fully agree but I don't think that balance currently exists (especially on copyright durations and I think for software the source should be published or escrowed and then released when copyright expires). I also don't like discussing "Intellectual property" as that leads to sloppy thinking and overbroad claims, it is better to discuss the specific types, patents, copyright, design patents, trademarks separately. The balance is also set by legislation and the judiciary should not have that much discretion (although they should have on fair use issues). > Giving first movers complete control over APIs, formats, and languages that become popular would enable a new wave of rent-seeking, very much like the patent trolling we see now. The trade off is the incentive to create and promote new platforms and the breadth of the right to implement them. For me this is an issue of fair use and competition law plus market solutions of people avoiding platforms where alternative implementations are not possible. There is a useful discussion to be had about fair use rights to copyrighted API's but I'm not sure the incompatible Dalvik would be fair use even if a compatible alternative was, we are deep in the grey area here. I would add as I have in other places that you need to consider how you would feel if it was old Sun in the Oracle role and MS in the Google role? Would this not be an egregious case of "embrace, extend extinguish"?

haberman 13y ago

> Tim Berners-Lee specifically granted permission and encouraged people to adopt the WWW and create their own implementations. > I'm not sure if there is a formal license grant or not Where is the actual license? If formats are truly copyrightable, then general "encouragement" is not sufficient, you would need an explicit license, as every open source project has to allow copying of copyrighted code. Where is the actual document that says you can use HTML without infringing the copyright of Tim Berners-Lee or the W3C? The answer is that there isn't one, because no one thinks that formats themselves are copyrightable. > They chose to develop the incompatible Dalvik to deliberately avoid Sun's contractual obligations but still benefit from the API design, documentation and existing developer experience expensively created by Sun. Writing books about your technology does not mean you somehow own the experience that people gain from reading them. Spending a lot of money does not entitle you to exert however much control you feel you deserve. "Intellectual property" is a balance between the interests of creators and the interests of society. Giving first movers complete control over APIs, formats, and languages that become popular would enable a new wave of rent-seeking, very much like the patent trolling we see now.

josephlord 13y ago
> Where is the actual license? OK I decided to actually look it up. Here it is: http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/Policy.html http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/Policy.html "The definition of protocols such as HTTP and data formats such as HTML are in the public domain and may be freely used by anyone." So back when originally developed TBL seems to have felt the need to declare the public domain nature (implying to me that it was NOT an obvious default). > Writing books about your technology does not mean you somehow own the experience that people gain from reading them. I agree. The creation and design of the API is what allowed Sun to do that. The documentation is merely part of the why Google decided to copy Java and many of it's libraries rather than develop their own API or use a freely licensed one. [Edit: I didn't really mean to agree with "owning the experience" bit but it does give them some rights.] > Spending a lot of money does not entitle you to exert however much control you feel you deserve. Agree. Copyright gives specific rights and there are also fair use rights that should possibly be strengthened. > "Intellectual property" is a balance between the interests of creators and the interests of society. I largely agree. I would like it the case that I could fully agree but I don't think that balance currently exists (especially on copyright durations and I think for software the source should be published or escrowed and then released when copyright expires). I also don't like discussing "Intellectual property" as that leads to sloppy thinking and overbroad claims, it is better to discuss the specific types, patents, copyright, design patents, trademarks separately. The balance is also set by legislation and the judiciary should not have that much discretion (although they should have on fair use issues). > Giving first movers complete control over APIs, formats, and languages that become popular would enable a new wave of rent-seeking, very much like the patent trolling we see now. The trade off is the incentive to create and promote new platforms and the breadth of the right to implement them. For me this is an issue of fair use and competition law plus market solutions of people avoiding platforms where alternative implementations are not possible. There is a useful discussion to be had about fair use rights to copyrighted API's but I'm not sure the incompatible Dalvik would be fair use even if a compatible alternative was, we are deep in the grey area here. I would add as I have in other places that you need to consider how you would feel if it was old Sun in the Oracle role and MS in the Google role? Would this not be an egregious case of "embrace, extend extinguish"?