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

[Bob Jonkman]

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

B.S. wrote
> There is a 3rd use case, which is what I thought was going on -
> what I would call thunking. (Think windows.) Think LD_PRELOAD.
> 
> I write 'api' calls with identical headers to the underlying
> API/SDK. I munge things in between, possibly returning directly,
> and possibly calling the underlying API and munging the return.
> Essentially replacing the pointer to function func, and internally
> calling the direct _func functions instead.

Interesting! But I don't think that was the case with Oracle and Google.
 Google only partially implemented the Java API, but I don't think that
was Oracle's concern either.  I suspect their true motivation was that
Google's Android phone made a ton of money, but the Oracle Java Phone
never made it off the drawing board (if it ever even made it TO the
drawing board!)[1].

There was another use case I read about[2] where a vendor made available
an API for their service for "API consumers", but the API was then used
to create a competitive service. The author of [2], Peter Bright
believes that's a clear case of Fair Use. But he thinks Google's use
of Oracle's API is a clear case of infringement since Google didn't
fully implement Oracle's API, so Google should (and could) have
created their own (incompatible) API.

But I don't think API copyrights or patents should ever stifle
competition and a better product. Must be because I'm such a Free
Software fanatic...

- --Bob.

[1]
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/how-oracles-fanciful-history-of-the-smartphone-failed-at-trial/2/

[2]
http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/06/the-googleoracle-decision-was-bad-for-copyright-and-bad-for-software/


- --
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


On 2016-06-09 07:51 PM, B.S. wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/09/2016 01:18 PM, Andrew Kohlsmith (mailing lists account) 
> wrote:
>>> On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com> 
>>> wrote: 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.
>>> 
>>> 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.
> 
> There is a 3rd use case, which is what I thought was going on -
> what I would call thunking. (Think windows.) Think LD_PRELOAD.
> 
> I write 'api' calls with identical headers to the underlying
> API/SDK. I munge things in between, possibly returning directly,
> and possibly calling the underlying API and munging the return.
> Essentially replacing the pointer to function func, and internally
> calling the direct _func functions instead.
> 
> I thought this was what was actually going on. Android having 
> optimized things for its platform that the Java SDK didn't do so
> well natively on that platform. For some reason, memory management
> is coming to mind. I'd guess path changes would also apply.
> 
>> I wonder if this second case (being able to emulate an API to a 
>> closed source library) falls under Fair Dealings or Fair Use
>> laws. e.g. ProprietaryLib.so is no longer maintained/available on
>> a platform so you write AlternativeLib.so to allow some software
>>  package to continue to function.
> 
> From what I read at the time, I thought this was the real issue of 
> the decision - a change in the realm of 'fair use'. So although 
> infringing (at an agreed upon opportunity cost of $0), it is (now) 
> fair use. And that change is what the article was warning about. 
> (Fatuously, but that's not the point here.)
> 
> Did I misread?


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

iEYEARECAAYFAldaFMMACgkQuRKJsNLM5epsvgCbBrz83DeWc0wJhLaT81QLANPq
rw8AoIfmYLaqhdt2JRW+0vJtXH0SoyIT
=QFK3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----