16 ms·
This is really bad for open source. A lot of people can now get sued for making compatible API implementations, and their only argument will be whether it is f
by DannyBee 13y ago
This is really bad for open source. A lot of people can now get sued for making compatible API implementations, and their only argument will be whether it is fair use (which is an affirmative defense).
IE Say FredCo has C++ and Java clients for their API. You decide to make and publish a Ruby client. If you use the same Structure, Sequence, and Organization of the API (IE you use the same API), congrats, the court thinks you are infringing copyright.
This is the simple version. Think about compilers and ABI's and SQL extensions and all sorts of things, and you can see this decision is truly terrible for open source.
- fpgeek 13y agoAnd not just open source. Compatible re-implementations are a standard staple of proprietary software as well (arguably including, ironically, Oracle itself as a compatible implementation of IBM's SQL).
- tosseraccount 13y agoI wouldn't say it's bad for open source. Java was always a proprietary technology. Anybody who wasn't aware of this didn't do due diligence. It's bad for java. Who wants to bet the company jewels on someting that Oracle controls? It won't be happening in the future. Apple's decision to stick with (objective) C is turning out to be a really smart move. That it runs 2x faster than java is another bonus. Bottom line: you can use java but don't get stuck so bad you can't refactor out of it. And don't trust Oracle. Regardless.
- cromwellian 13y agoExcept that iOS is based on Unix, and the freedom to re-implement copyrighted Unix APIs was litigated and won. What if SCO/Novell/USL/whoever owns the Unix copyrights now, comes back and sues anyone reimplementing them? That includes OSX and iOS which are dependent on Unix compatibility. Also, what's being litigated here is not Java-the-language but Java-the-core-API-interfaces. You could refactor your way out of those, just provide alternate versions of java.io, java.lang, etc, new redesigned core APIs. It would break core Java compatibility, but Android is so big, most people would port their Java libraries, and in the end, Oracle would be hurt more, since they rely far more on server-side Java, but most of the world's Java programmers would be migrating to writing mobile apps, probably with non-Java backends, or Java + new Core APIs.
- super_mario 13y agoExcept UNIX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix is owned by "The Open Group" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group One of its purposes is to provide Single Unix Specification (SUS) certification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification Mac OS X is SUS v3 certified (I don't think iOS is) and can call itself UNIX, and there is 0 danger of anyone suing you for implementing POSIX API or SUS. You just can not claim you are providing a UNIX without getting certified. This is why Linux is UNIX-like OS and not a UNIX.
- cromwellian 13y agoYou're confusing Trademark with Copyright. The Open Group owns the Unix trademark, it does not own the API. The fact that POSIX uses the API does not mean any claims to "structure, sequence, organization" of the APIs or command line utilities are invalid. This has never been litigated before. Past UNIX copyright wars were fought over copying actual code between Unix and clones. No one has ever tested whether API reimplementation of Unix is copyrighted. Implementing as public spec won't save you. Java has a public, open, specification and was clean-room reimplemented in much the same way that Linux is not Unix, Android Java is not Java. Claiming there is 0 danger in being sued sounds like naively wishful thinking, especially with Apple's deep pockets, there are plenty of lawyers out there looking for ways to crack that nut.
- maxlybbert 13y agoThe Open Group own both the UNIX trademark and the POSIX spec. They used to demand a lot of money for copies of the spec, but you can get it online for free nowadays ( https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/catalog/G101 https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/catalog/G101 is a good place to start). They put copyright notices on the spec, but (at least until this ruling) that was widely believed to only apply to the description of what functions needed to do, and not to the function declarations.
- 13y ago
- davelnewton 13y agoThousands of companies "bet the jewels" on Java and will be making the same bet for the foreseeable future, for better or worse. Blanket statements like "ObjC is 2x faster than Java" is... well, a blanket statement, and in general, wrong. It depends so much on what, precisely, you're doing, how you're doing it, the compiler and JIT implementation, etc.
- leccine 13y agoWell I think we can ditch Java in favor of: Go, Erlang, Haskell, C++, Rust The reason for using Java is the corporate penetration and being the de-facto language for thousands of developers. I seriously think that Java as a language is old and hard to use (hello Clojure & Scala) and on the top of that owned Oracle is the biggest patent troll in the history of humanity, so even implementing the APIs can lead to lawsuits just like the example above. Now the only question is, why the hell do we still implement new things in Java in 2014? Time to wake up, get a language that is free by every meaning free has and bury Java for good. Is this hard? Definitely is, but if we don't start it today when can we stop Oracle from suing your startups because you implemented an API. Changing US law seems harder. :)
- threeseed 13y agoPlease be serious. Go has about 0.0001% of the third party library base that Java does. Many of which are essential for large scale enterprise development. It's why languages like Clojure and Scala have become a lot more popular because they leverage the ecosystem. No one will move just because of some insignificant lawsuit.
- leccine 13y agoYou are talking about a stall picture, a moment in time, thinking this will last forever. I am talking about how fast that 0.0001% becomes 50%. If Oracle is patent trolling the Java developer communities the developers and other enterprises are not going to take it easy. We are talking about Google not some random 3 people startup that pays whatever the patent owner is asking for just to save a lawsuit. Java is the the most resourceful ecosystem today, there is no doubt about that. It is ~20 years old Go is 5, and please have a look to this chart: http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=Go%2C+Java&l=&relative=1 http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=Go%2C+Java&l=&relative=1
- garvelmdkb 13y agoIt's amazing how the chart shows that go was growing faster than Java years before go was even released.... Virtually none of the 'go' job ads have anything to do with programming.
- sheetjs 13y agoI wonder how this affects the Microsoft Open Specifications Promise (which covers the specs pertaining to Office Document file formats) -- it would be unfortunate if Microsoft decided to reverse course and break their promise
- Guvante 13y agoThis doesn't impact Microsoft's promise at all. The issue at hand was that Oracle specified that any implementation using their Specifications license be compatible, and the Dalvik implementation is not compatible. So it isn't that Oracle is going back on their word, it is that Google did not follow the rules of the license.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- pron 13y agoFirst, I don't think the court ruled infringement -- only copyrightability. Second, not too many open source projects implement proprietary APIs. FOSS today does not get its value from producing fully compatible clones of proprietary software. Third, proprietary software vendors will face the choice of limiting the use of their APIs (i.e. copying) by OSS and risk reduced adoption, or allow it to get wide adoption and offer a superior implementation. I'm not sure most would choose the former. So with the state of FOSS today, I don't see how such a decision changes much. I would very much like to hear if people have counterexamples (other than WINE).
- Oletros 13y ago> First, I don't think the court ruled infringement -- only copyrightability. The jury ruled infringement in the Oracle - Google trial
- bmvakili 13y agoBut deadlocked on Google's fair use.
- Oletros 13y agoYap, 9-3 in Google favor
- bmvakili 13y agoAm I reading this wrong or what's missing? "Because we conclude that the declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization of the API packages are entitled to copyright protection, we reverse the district court’s copyrightability determination with instructions to reinstate the jury’s infringement finding as to the 37 Java packages. Because the jury deadlocked on fair use, we remand for further consideration of Google’s fair use defense in light of this decision. With respect to Google’s cross-appeal, we affirm the district court’s decisions: (1) granting Oracle’s motion for JMOL as to the eight decompiled Java files that Google copied into Android; and (2) denying Google’s motion for JMOL with respect to the rangeCheck function. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand for further proceedings."
- rayiner 13y agoI think there are at least a couple of rays of hope: 1) This isn't binding precedent nationwide, like a patent ruling would be, and most copyright cases aren't going to end up in the Federal Circuit. The other Courts of Appeal will have their say in deciding the issue, and with any luck a circuit split could result in Supreme Court review. In particular, I'm not sure they're going to buy the Federal Circuit's merger doctrine analysis. 2) The court repeatedly mentioned that Google copied 7,000 lines of declarations verbatim. I wonder how many gaps are in the reasoning of this case to stick a knife through in cases where there wasn't such literal copying.
- DannyBee 13y agoIn #2, almost every open source project i can think that implement someone else's API are copying declarations verbatim :(
- pron 13y agoReally? What lines? Copied from where?
- DannyBee 13y agoI think you misread it (so i updated the original comment). I meant that open source projects that reuse API declarations or parts aren't typing them themselves, they are copying those API declarations verbatim from somewhere. Ray's point what if they didn't copy, it may not be an issue, but they all do copy. Here's a related but not exact example of what typically happens that i actually happened to have open in another window: https://github.com/andreacimino/gql4j/blob/master/src/main/java/antlr3/com/googlecode/gql4j/antlr/GQL.g https://github.com/andreacimino/gql4j/blob/master/src/main/j... Notice the comments. These are taken, verbatim, directly from the definitions in Google's GQL reference. Because it's a parser, there are no declarations, only a grammar implementation (which, BTW, would also fall under this precedent). However, you'll see the same thing in open source projects that do API implementations as well.
- 13y ago
- aidenn0 13y agoOn the other hand, there are at least a few instances of BSD licensed alternatives to GPL licensed software; can GNU sue people who use those for copyright infringement?
- jboy55 13y agoIf someone made a BSD clone of your GPL software, then a bunch of companies took that BSD clone and built products off of it, keeping their modifications private. You'd bet the GNU people would help you sue.
- nullc 13y ago> BSD licensed alternatives to GPL licensed software You mean like how Dalvik is Google's BSD (Well, Apache 2.0) licensed clone of Oracle's GPL licensed Java? (http://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-welcomes-gpl-java.html http://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-welcomes-gpl-java.html) :)
- shmerl 13y agoFair is doesn't need to be viewed as affirmative defense: https://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php https://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php It's more proper to view it as a right.
- DannyBee 13y agoWhile it would be nice, courts view it as an affirmative defense, particularly in the 9th circuit See: Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1403 (9th Cir.1997); Supermarket of Homes v. San Fernando Valley Bd. of Realtors, 786 F.2d 1400, 1408–09 (9th Cir.1986)
- shmerl 13y agoWhat determines that approach? The way judge decides to do it in each case? In this case however the biggest damage is that they reversed the ruling that APIs aren't copyrightable. Is there any way that Google can reappeal it in a higher court, or it's a final decision? In Europe APIs were ruled uncopyrightable some time ago, but somehow this didn't help in this case.
- DannyBee 13y agoGoogle could request rehearing en-banc (IE in front of the whole federal circuit). If that succeeded, the decision would be vacated until the en-banc rehearing. Whether that happens or not, they can also appeal it to the supreme court. Suffice to say, my completely personal view is that it was appealed to this very court for a reason. Normally, this is the court that hears all patent appeals. Because the original lawsuit involved patent claims, they have jurisdiction, even though there are no patent claims being appealed. Otherwise, it would have gone to the 9th circuit, who, i suspect, would have been more favorable.
- rayiner 13y ago> What determines that approach? The way judge decides to do it in each case? A fair use defense means that something happened that would otherwise create liability, but doesn't because of some (often policy) reason. Making something an affirmative defense has procedural implications. But "rights" can be implemented as affirmative defenses. For example, truth is an affirmative defense to defamation in the U.S., even though it's closely connected with free speech rights. EDIT: But see dragonwriter's very pertinent comment about defamation cases involving matters of public concern, where falsity is an element of the claim rather than an affirmative defense. The practical distinction is that it's easier to dispose of cases on a motion to dismiss when something is a required element of the claim versus when it is an affirmative defense.
- marcosdumay 13y agoYou can bet this will hurt open source. This will also hurt proprietary software. And people that work with software (producint it, or just using). This is a "let's send the US back into stone age!" kind of decision.
- puppetmaster3 13y agoThis is really great for open source. When I write some code and license it as open source, I want to be given attribution, including by closed source companies that 'copy' the open source.
- jboy55 13y agoPeople are having trouble groking that not good for Google doesn't mean not good for Open Source. Strong Copyright is the backbone of the GPL, without it, the GPL's perpetual open concept is meaningless.
- spacemanmatt 13y agoThe GPL's protection of implementations is not harmed affected by exclusion of APIs from copyright.
- jboy55 13y agoIts really good for open source. The more that is protected by copyright, the stronger the GPL and the BSD license are.
- cheald 13y agoGood for the gpl does not mean good for open source. This decision immediately and directly harms software development as an industry, because it means that api interoperability now puts you on the hook for infringement. The gpl exists to promote the creation of open source software, not to keep people from using open source. Just because this makes it more enforceable in no way makes this good for open source.
- rodgerd 13y agoAbsolutely. If this holds, you can kiss WINE, PostgreSQL, MySQL derivatives, the whole lot goodbye.