FSF statement on jury's partial verdict in Oracle v Google(fsf.org)
fsf.org
FSF statement on jury's partial verdict in Oracle v Google
http://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-statement-on-jurys-partial-verdict-in-oracle-v-google
17 comments
Asking the free software foundation their opinion on this is pretty much like asking the turkey if it's looking forward to Christmas. The idea of an API being copyright runs so contrary to their ideals.
That being said, I'd hate to think of the number of APIs which have been cloned without the explicit permission of the copyright owner.
I can't imagine how this wouldn't cause trouble for Wine. Possibly even VirtualBox, it re-implements the IBM PC API. Could any emulator fall victim to this? Isn't a processors instruction set just the API for the processor?
That being said, I'd hate to think of the number of APIs which have been cloned without the explicit permission of the copyright owner.
I can't imagine how this wouldn't cause trouble for Wine. Possibly even VirtualBox, it re-implements the IBM PC API. Could any emulator fall victim to this? Isn't a processors instruction set just the API for the processor?
> Isn't a processors instruction set just the API for the processor?
Especially now that most modern-day processors (at least of the x86 family) translate their native instruction set to a microcode.
Especially now that most modern-day processors (at least of the x86 family) translate their native instruction set to a microcode.
Doesn't the GPL rely on copyrightability of APIs, in that it claims even code linking to a GPL library is subject to the GPL? That's one reason this might be surprising; a finding against API copyrightability might be taken as undermining the GPL.
I don't think so but I'm not an expert. The ruling in this case would be that no own could implement the same API without violating the copyright on the GPL code. For example you couldn't create a GPL free glib etc.
I would be willing to bet that if that ruling would cause vastly more issues than it solves for the open source community.
I would be willing to bet that if that ruling would cause vastly more issues than it solves for the open source community.
[deleted](1)
If the judge determines that APIs are indeed copyrightable, will this not have equally important implications for the FSF in the other direction?
To use a particularly well-known example, libraries implementing a readline-compatible API could become subject to the terms of the GPL. Am I wrong?
To use a particularly well-known example, libraries implementing a readline-compatible API could become subject to the terms of the GPL. Am I wrong?
If the US judge decides that it is copyrightable it would be another giant departure from the EU on IP stuff. SAS recently lost a lawsuit at the ECJ on the same matter:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120502083035371
There was something similar, but not quite as far reaching in Lotus v. Borland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Dev._Corp._v._Borland_Int....
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120502083035371
There was something similar, but not quite as far reaching in Lotus v. Borland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Dev._Corp._v._Borland_Int....
How about the C language? stdlibs api are still under copyright so the author could sue the FSF for the GCC, Apple for LLVM and whoever use C.
Bit of a difference for me. C is a standard i.e. ANSI/ISO.
For me standards should not be able to copyrighted and patented.
For me standards should not be able to copyrighted and patented.
[deleted](2)
Otherwise this will be like having a copyright on speech - first you teach people a language to communicate (and many universities / colleges have invested substantial amounts based on the promise by Sun that it has provided the use of the Java language for free), and later you change your mind and ask a judge to decide if people using the words of the language should not all pay you money for using these words.
If you want to charge people for your language / its implementation you should not provide it as open source e.a. licenses. One reason why so many universities / colleges took Java and not for example C# was because the language was declared as free to use.
If the outcome of this case will be that Google is forced to pay licensing fees for using the building blocks of the Java language, this will also be a death sentence for Java. Already now even with the strong demand for Android developers the demand for Java programmers is shrinking since at least 12 months.
Luckily sharpen (Java -> C#) is making great progress these days and MS is step-by-step understanding the benefits of open source for platform / infrastructure providers.
At the same time how about giving Oracle their way with this process and at the same time provide all universities / colleges / training centers and all those having been trained there the right to reclaim the cost for training in Java and retrain them in another (but still free) language, pay them salaries and educate them for years until they got to the same experience level they might have with Java now. 10 million Java users is a lot and 1995-2012 is a long time.
And lets do these reclaims "Hollywood style" just the way ORCL likes to do it themselves - how about $50 Billion, $100 Billion or even better 10 Million times what they claim from Google Oracle should pay back to all those who invested into the Java language after having been deceived by statements from Sun & Oracle that Java is a free language they can use to build businesses on.