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

[Bob Jonkman]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I finally read the article Joe linked to:
> On 05/27/2016 07:34 PM, Joe Wennechuk wrote:
>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-free-software-how-google-killed-gpl-annette-hurst

The
>> 
author, Annette Hurst @divaesq is very obviously not a software
developer.

There are two different use cases for using an API: 1) I write
software that uses your services, so my software contains calls to
your software using your API; 2) I write software that emulates your
software, so my software contains implementations of your API so that
others can replace your software with my software.  I'm not sure which
use case Oracle objected to.

We've seen objections to both use cases -- in the first, companies
like Open Whisper Systems will not allow third-party Signal-like
clients to use the API calls on their server; in the second case I can
only think of Google replicating Oracle's Java engine in Android (I'm
sure there are others).

The first case is ludicrous. Any company that publishes an API should
expect others to write third-party software to use the API. Why else
publish the API? If you don't want people to use it, don't publish it.

The second case is a little more subtle, but also contrary to common
sense. It's entirely possible Oracle objects to Sun having made the
Java source code freely available, but once that cat is out of the bag
you can't put it back in. So here they are trying to say "Yes, you can
implement a Java engine, but you can't copy the API", effectively
making that code non-free again. It is certainly not what the original
Sun developers intended by making the source available.

It is likely this kind of behaviour is already prohibited by GPL v3,
since it is like "tivoization" -- not only does the source code need
to be available, it needs to be practical to implement. Oracle's
attempt to copyright APIs is like Tivo's attempt to restrict use of
their source code with DRM. If API copyright isn't already covered
under tivoization then I'm sure a future version of the GPL will
address this.

The GPL isn't dead yet.

- --Bob.


On 2016-05-29 01:28 AM, Chris Irwin wrote:
> 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.
> 


- --
Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com> Phone: +1-519-635-9413
SOBAC Microcomputer Services http://sobac.com/sobac/
Software --- Office & Business Automation --- Consulting
GnuPG Fngrprnt:04F7 742B 8F54 C40A E115 26C2 B912 89B0 D2CC E5EA



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
Comment: Ensure confidentiality, authenticity, non-repudiability

iEYEARECAAYFAldZobAACgkQuRKJsNLM5erQBgCfaiQT9Mad2GgPu7CEarNteyPZ
YGgAoJ8PleCKsfFak8OTiwbi6w/cWL95
=dDnu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----