On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Kern Sibbald <[email protected]> wrote: > I am not taking any side, but could you be more specific on your comment > "the result this would have on the GPL"?
i do not believe that the GPL currently *explicitly* states "any **APIs*** implemented in the source code which is being licensed under the GPL are available under the terms and conditions *of* the GPL". in other words, what oracle - and the court - have not realised is that *unless* software licenses of the past - not just the GPL but *all* software licenses - *specifically* have been designed with enough foresight to explicitly state "yeah you can use the APIs in this software" then it is necessary to go and ask permission of the copyright holders. in the case of the GPL on the linux kernel that is clearly flat-out impossible. now there may be some cases where some software licenses (proprietary ones usually) prevent and prohibit interacting with the software in general such that the APIs (if there are any) are explicitly prohibited *anyway* (by saying things like "you may not link against this software") but actually reviewing that - world-wide - all businesses, all end-users, all software suppliers... we're looking at a _major_ amount of hassle. l. > Thanks, > Kern > > > On 14-10-16 02:16 AM, thufir wrote: >> >> On Sat, 10 May 2014 12:55:29 +0100, TJ wrote: >> >> > What are the potential ramifications of the U.S.A. appeals court >> > decision in Oracle Vs Google, that APIs are copyrightable and the only >> > question now is whether such use is fair-use? >> > >> > I'm wondering about the specific affect on a GPL licensed project that >> > re-implements an API, distributes their code under the GPL, and the >> > developers and downstream users exposure to a claim of copyright >> > infringement (of the API) for developing and using the F/OSS >> > implementation by the original API copyright holder? >> >> >> 'Though the trial court did add the caveat that it “does not hold that >> the structure, sequence and organization of all computer programs may be >> stolen,” Copyrightability Decision, 872 F. Supp. 2d at 1002, it is hard >> to see how its method of operation analysis could lead to any other >> conclusion.' >> >> the appeals court seems to have hit the nail on the head. >> >> I cannot fathom why the FSF is on the side of letting API's get copied, I >> mean stolen. Do they not see the result this would have on the GPL? Or, >> do they see a larger issue? Or, do they just think that it's not >> stealing? It's remarkable that the trial judge and the appeal judge use >> a word like stolen, and not "infringe" or other legal mumbo jumbo. >> >> >> >> >> -Thufir >> > >
