[kwlug-disc] This sounds scary? no more GPL?

[Chris Irwin]

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 07:52:21PM -0400, Digimer wrote:
> Sounds like FUD.
> 
> APIs can't be copyrighted. That's it. Doesn't effect the use of source code.

Not true.

The first case ended with the ruling that the "Structure, sequence, and
organization" ("SSO") of the Java API was not copyrightable (it also
covered some other issues, but the API-use ruling is the only one we
really care about here). However, Oracle appealed that. The appeals
court ruled that the "SSO" of APIs are indeed copyrightable. Google
petitioned the US Supreme Court, who denied a hearing. So there you go.
APIs are not copyritable.

The case was then sent back to the original court to determine if
Google's use was "Fair Use". That was the ruling last week: The jury
decided that copying the "Structure, sequence, and organization" of an
API is fair use.

I'm rather happy with the "quick" techdirt summary of the recent ruling:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160526/13584834558/big-win-fair-use-jury-says-googles-use-java-apis-was-fair-use-to-appeal.shtml

The wikipedia article gets the overall points right without
editorializing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.

So the final result is that, for the moment, nothing really changes.

APIs are now considered to be protected by copyrite, but reimplenting
them is fair use. That said, I haven't read through the ruling to
determine if this is specifically published APIs, or if this will have
any adverse impact on reverse engineering, or unpublished APIs
(questions that matter for Wine and ReactOS folks, for example).

Moving on...

The op-ed from Oracle's lawyer that Ars Technica ran was pretty funny
(original here for those without a linked-in account):

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/op-ed-oracle-attorney-says-googles-court-victory-might-kill-the-gpl/

Her interpretation of the ruling (which is obviously skewed by who signs
her paycheck) was "if you offer your software on an open and free basis,
any use is fair use". That doesn't seem to be how I interperet it
(obligatory IANAL), or how any of the dozens of rather skilled and
knowledgeable people I've been reading this week have interepreted it.

To my understanding, this isn't about code or software. Actually copying
code would still be a big no-no. License violations and copyright
infrigement of software (whether GPL, commercial, etc) are not affected.
The GPL sky-is-falling message is just FUD.

-- 
Chris Irwin

email:   chris at chrisirwin.ca
 xmpp:   chris at chrisirwin.ca
  web: https://chrisirwin.ca