3 ms·

That's not really true, things can become de-facto standards even if they're proprietary, especially if the actual status is in doubt. Many developers don't thi

That's not really true, things can become de-facto standards even if they're proprietary, especially if the actual status is in doubt. Many developers don't think about the long term consequences of licenses when they start using stuff, especially if it is useful and free of charge. Linux is a perfect example of a proprietary API (Unix) which is in very widespread use, which was cloned by FOSS. Most of the Unix command line utilities were explicitly cloned by the FSF to be compatible with existing shell scripts on Unix. Adobe made Flash proprietary and it became incredibly widespread, so widespread that if you turned if off, many websites would break, despite the fact that it had numerous performance and security issues. Flash made it to something like 97% penetration of all Web clients (prior to Apple iPhone) People have cloned Flash (hAXE for example), but there was really no reason to do it, because Adobe offered the player free of charge. WINE is in widespread use. Samba is in widespread use. Lots of Website REST APIs have been cloned. Adobe PDF was proprietary and widespread cloned until in 2008 it became an open standard. Cloning APIs is a time honored tradition for "embrace and extend". Microsoft even cloned proprietary APIs, and DOS itself started out as an unauthorized clone of CP/M. Where would Bill Gates be today without Seattle Softworks? I hate having to resort to the tired ole idea of rich people having gotten rich by theft, but in many cases, it's quite true, that Gates and Jobs both freely copied, cloned, and modified other people's stuff, got stupendously wealthy off of it, but somehow, it's wrong for us to want to practice their methods?

pron 13y ago
What happened in the past is irrelevant, because after this ruling, it probably won't happen again. The freedom to clone proprietary APIs is not essential to FOSS any more, because the FOSS ecosystem has become powerful on its own. Either proprietary vendors choose to license their APIs to FOSS, or risk being replaced by an incompatible FOSS implementation. My question was about how the current ecosystem will be disrupted. Now, with WINE -- I agree, but I don't think it's in widespread use, and I don't think Microsoft will go after them. AFAIK, Samba implements a networking protocol, not an API (but I may be mistaken). It really all comes down to Linux. If Linux is in danger, then obviously the ecosystem can be disrupted by this ruling; if not -- then probably not. I must say I don't know enough about the current legal status of Linux, and whether or not it's in real danger.
- cromwellian 13y ago
  >What happened in the past is irrelevant In other words, "I got mine". People who profited and got stupendously rich, get off scott free, and are free to deploy lawyers to interfere with the next wave of participants. Not unlike immigrants who settle in, and then want to slam the door on the next group of immigrants. >Samba implements a networking protocol, not an API Protocols and APIs are another distinction without a different. If the sequence, structure, and organization of an API can be copyrighted, then surely, the sequence, structure, and organization of a wire protocol or file format can, after all, the only real different is the invocation mechanism.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    > If the sequence, structure, and organization of an API can be copyrighted, then surely, the sequence, structure, and organization of a wire protocol or file format can, after all, the only real different is the invocation mechanism. While it might be easy to analogize between an API and a wire protocol in terms of technology, that doesn't mean that analogy holds within the framework of copyright law. The Fed. Cir. opinion was expressly couched in terms of the "sequence, structure, and organization" of the names in the API. Indeed, the opinion concedes that if Google had chosen different names, then things would be fine. Putting the same bytes at the same offsets is not at all the same as naming things the same way.
    - georgemcbay 13y ago
      Yeah but doesn't the distinction become way less clear when talking about protocols that aren't traditional fixed-structure binary protocols? We live in a world of protocols that are increasingly RPC/REST based which as others have mentioned are really just APIs you happen to access over a network connection.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        Good point.
- 13y ago

pron 13y ago

What happened in the past is irrelevant, because after this ruling, it probably won't happen again. The freedom to clone proprietary APIs is not essential to FOSS any more, because the FOSS ecosystem has become powerful on its own. Either proprietary vendors choose to license their APIs to FOSS, or risk being replaced by an incompatible FOSS implementation. My question was about how the current ecosystem will be disrupted. Now, with WINE -- I agree, but I don't think it's in widespread use, and I don't think Microsoft will go after them. AFAIK, Samba implements a networking protocol, not an API (but I may be mistaken). It really all comes down to Linux. If Linux is in danger, then obviously the ecosystem can be disrupted by this ruling; if not -- then probably not. I must say I don't know enough about the current legal status of Linux, and whether or not it's in real danger.

cromwellian 13y ago
>What happened in the past is irrelevant In other words, "I got mine". People who profited and got stupendously rich, get off scott free, and are free to deploy lawyers to interfere with the next wave of participants. Not unlike immigrants who settle in, and then want to slam the door on the next group of immigrants. >Samba implements a networking protocol, not an API Protocols and APIs are another distinction without a different. If the sequence, structure, and organization of an API can be copyrighted, then surely, the sequence, structure, and organization of a wire protocol or file format can, after all, the only real different is the invocation mechanism.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > If the sequence, structure, and organization of an API can be copyrighted, then surely, the sequence, structure, and organization of a wire protocol or file format can, after all, the only real different is the invocation mechanism. While it might be easy to analogize between an API and a wire protocol in terms of technology, that doesn't mean that analogy holds within the framework of copyright law. The Fed. Cir. opinion was expressly couched in terms of the "sequence, structure, and organization" of the names in the API. Indeed, the opinion concedes that if Google had chosen different names, then things would be fine. Putting the same bytes at the same offsets is not at all the same as naming things the same way.
  - georgemcbay 13y ago
    Yeah but doesn't the distinction become way less clear when talking about protocols that aren't traditional fixed-structure binary protocols? We live in a world of protocols that are increasingly RPC/REST based which as others have mentioned are really just APIs you happen to access over a network connection.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Good point.
13y ago