On 14-10-18 08:06 AM, lkcl . wrote:
On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 6:10 AM, thufir<[email protected]> wrote:
>In this case we're talking about OpenJDK. OpenJDK is under the GPL. Well,
>now anyone can come along, copy the SSO and distribute without consideration
>of the GPL. Wow, that's huge.
no not really. if they implement an interoperable version, then so what?
They don't even claim to implement an interoperable version, to start with:
'Counsel did not identify any programs that use only the 37 API packages
at issue, however, and did not attest that any such program would be
useful. Nor did Google cite to any record evidence to support this claim.'
and, they never claimed to have reverse engineered the API, at least no
where did I see Google ever make this claim. Ever. See:
'As the former Register of Copyrights of the United States pointed out
in his brief amicus curiae, “[h]ad Google reverse engineered the
programming packages to figure out the ideas and functionality of the
original, and then created its own structure and its own literal code,
Oracle would have no remedy under copyright whatsoever.”'
Google does claim that they "had" to implement the 37 API's, that's just
circular reasoning:
'Indeed, given the record evidence that Google designed Android so that
it would not be compatible with the Java platform, or the JVM
specifically, we find Google’s interoperability argument confusing.
While Google repeatedly cites to the district court’s finding that
Google had to copy the packages so that an app written in Java could run
on Android, it cites to no evidence in the record that any such app
exists and points to no Java apps that either pre-dated or post-dated
Android that could run on the Android platform. 15 The compatibility
Google sought to foster was not with Oracle’s Java platform or with the
JVM central to that platform.'
I think when the appeals court writes that Google's argument is
confusing, that's just code for circular reasoning -- they're being
polite, and giving Google an opportunity to make a non-confusing
argument to the SCOTUS.
Again:
'The compatibility Google sought to foster was not with Oracle’s Java
platform or with the JVM central to that platform.'
So, unfortunately, your what-if above doesn't even apply, there's no "so
what".
Google seems to be making this compatibility argument, but it's a very
weak sort of compatibility:
"And so all these Android phones are going to be incompatible." -James
Gosling
This is my reading of the appeals court decision.
1.) Dalvik isn't compatabile
2.) Dalvik wasn't reverse engineered -- or at least, Google never makes
that explicit claim
but Google's justifications are all about compatibility, which only
applies in the case of reverse engineering.
-Thufir
