SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The case Google v. Oracle America, previously named Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., is being heard by the US Supreme Court. At the center of the case is whether programmers require permission to use an application programming interface (API). The outcome will determine the extent to which APIs can or should be copyrighted. If it turns out that copyright can be used to lock competitors out of using any given API, then there are severe repercussions for software development, as all programs these days rely heavily on pre-existing libararies which are then accessed via APIs.
Google: The case for open innovation:
The Court will review whether copyright should extend to nuts-and-bolts software interfaces, and if so, whether it can be fair to use those interfaces to create new technologies, as the jury in this case found. Software interfaces are the access points that allow computer programs to connect to each other, like plugs and sockets. Imagine a world in which every time you went to a different building, you needed a different plug to fit the proprietary socket, and no one was allowed to create adapters.
This case will make a difference for everyone who touches technology—from startups to major tech platforms, software developers to product manufacturers, businesses to consumers—and we're pleased that many leading representatives of those groups will be filing their own briefs to support our position.
At bottom in the case is the issue of whether copyright law bars the commonplace practice of software reimplementation, "[t]he process of writing new software to perform certain functions of a legacy product." (Google brief p.7) Here, Google had repurposed certain functional elements of Java SE (less that 0.5% of Java SE overall, according to Google's brief, p. 8) in its Android operating system for the sake of interoperability—enabling Java apps to work with Android and Android apps to work with Java, and enabling Java developers to build apps for both platforms without needing to learn the new conventions and structure of an entirely new platform.
Devclass: Google says nature of APIs under threat as Oracle case heads to US Supreme Court:
The case – ten years in making – centres on Oracle's claims that its Java patents and copyrights were infringed by Google when the search giant created its Android mobile operating system. An initial ruling in Google's favour was overturned on appeal, and the case is finally due to land in the Supreme Court this year. Google filed its opening brief for the justices this week.
When was the last time, outside of school, when you yourself have written a program entirely from scratch and not used even a single set of application programming interfaces? Yeah. Thought so.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 15 2020, @02:52PM (4 children)
If Oracle wins is an important question.
GPL does protect you from claims of copyright infringement against you from the licensor/author of the code. That's one of the reasons for an open source license. A few years ago this silly "no license" movement sprang up, then quickly died. People writing software didn't want to deal with the complexities of understanding licenses. Can't we all just get along? We're all nice guys. Etc. The author says he would never sue me for using his code that he put up on GitHub. I say: if you're such a good guy, then put that promise in writing, it's called a license.
I don't "install" Java on Linux (or Windows). I have multiple unziped (un-tar'ed) Java runtimes. I use scripts that launch all my Java dev tools, servers, etc. The scripts are trivially pointed at different versions of Java (or different 'vendor' builds) for testing.
Sun put the JDK under the GPL + classpath license. They can't take it back. Nor can Oracle. Oracle's official proprietary builds are based on OpenJDK. Oracle's paid developers contribute to OpenJDK, which is upstream from Oracle's builds. What Oracle offers is binary builds, like everyone else. But you can pay to have continued support and patches way beyond the end lifetime of a particular version of Java. Hence, lots of Java programs (not mine) are still on Java 8 and pay for support. Red Hat, Azul Systems and others similarly offer paid support. There are also volunteer efforts to backport important patches to no-longer-supported versions of Java. So you can still get Open JDK updates for Java 8 with important security fixes for example.
I'll also clarify (informally, in a nutshell) what the "classpath" exception is to the GPL. Open JDK is GPL, full stop. That means if you have a program that runs on Java, YOUR PROGRAM comes under the scope of the GPL. The classpath exception is an additional clause from Sun stating that your program does NOT come under the scope of the GPL if it is merely using Java as a runtime platform and adds significant value beyond the bare JDK. (eg, you can't use a "hello world" program as an excuse to redistribute the entire JDK and evade the GPL, and let your "hello world" program launch other larger programs.)
If you have a major Java application and want to pay Oracle / Red Hat / Azul Systems / and others for commercial support -- be my guest.
Or you can use Open JDK without commercial support. If it breaks at 3 AM, it's your problem. But that is true of an unsupported Linux installation as well.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 15 2020, @04:31PM (3 children)
What this means is that if Oracle is found to have a valid copyright to code that others have included in ANY code that Oracle hasn't given a license to, that code is infringing - in the USA.
Exceptions would be JDKs and JVMs that were obtained directly from Sun with a more permissive license, to use and redistribute. This doesn't somehow get passed on to later versions distributed by Oracle - just that they cannot retroactively change a license agreement they were never a party to.
Same reason why Linux can't be changed to a newer version of the gpl -,too many copyright holders, some of whom can't give permission to change the license because they're dead.
The alternative is to rewrite from scratch. Might not be a bad idea but it will never happen.
But no version of the GPL has EVER provided protection from claims by 3rd parties of copyright infringement. Any infringing code HAS to be removed or an agreement made to relicence it under the GPL. Copyright law doesn't allow for anyone to change the license of code owned by someone else. The GPL certainly doesn't allow it. So your basic premise is wrong.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 15 2020, @04:45PM (2 children)
It is correct that the GPL doesn't protect you from your own infringement of someone's copyright.
Oracle's Open JDK source code, to this very day, is still GPL + classpath.
In fact, the GPL+classpath licensed Open JDK is upstream to Oracle. Oracle pays developers to work on Open JDK. Oracle uses Open JDK to build its own binary product, which it supports.
There is no need to rewrite. Oracle's Open JDK source code is GPL+classpath licensed.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 15 2020, @05:34PM (1 child)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday January 15 2020, @05:47PM
It is true that Oracle holds the trademark on Java. And Oracle can insist that nobody can deceptively market anything as being "real java". Just as Coke can prevent Pepsi from implying that it is Coke. Yet Pepsi exists.
If Oracle wins its copyrightable API argument, it will be a major tectonic shift in the entire industry. Bigger than Android or Java.
Even people who hate Java may be affected.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.