On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 3:44 PM, thufir <[email protected]> wrote: > On 14-10-19 09:13 AM, Kern Sibbald wrote: > > Thanks for your response. I don't want to take sides yet because I don't yet > fully understand the case. If Google copied copyrighted code in violation > of the licence they have a problem. > For the GPL IANAL but the licence permits copying the code provided that > the copyright is maintained thus though not explicit it is clear to me any > GPLed APL can be copied.
APL -> API (right?) (Watch those initialisms, folks. This conversation is already abstruse enough ;-) > I think this exactly hits the nail on the head: "...provided that the > copyright is maintained." By changing the license from GPL to ASL (or, > theoretically, closed-source), I don't consider that ok. We often wave our hands regarding licenses and copyright, but I think the question being debating here is not whether one has *changed* the license or *maintained* copyright, but whether that content is *eligible* for copyright protection in the first place. > "...Google conceded that it copied it [the declaring code] verbatim," page > 27. > > This is something which only FOSS is vulnerable to, because the declaring > code is there to be copied. When you say 'vulnerable', are you talking about the vulnerability of the original library code to being copied, or the vulnerability of the rewritten API-compatible second library to a copyright lawsuit? > The > implication that it's then possible to, literally, copy the API verbatim (p > 27), not for the purpose of compatibility, but to cash in on the popularity > of the original (p 51), without trying to figure out the original (p 48), is > huge. Doesn't compatibility pretty much boil down to 'cashing in' (so to speak) on the popularity of the original? To put it another way, all of the various import filters we have in LibreOffice are useful precisely because people have created documents in those formats (whether in a program designed by the original author of the format, or a competing program). If there was zero popularity of the format, then nobody would have files written in it, and nobody would have a need for an import filter. If you have a bunch of people who have written Java programs, and who know how to write Java code, why would one create a different programming language for a new mobile phone OS if Java would work quite well for the purpose? > Again, this only applies to FOSS, and would allow anyone to steal an > API (p 42). Stolen, the word used not just by the first trial, but also by > the appeals court. Note that there's no dissenting opinion from the appeals > court. The only time the appeals court used the word 'stolen' was in a quote from the first trial, so I don't think that counts as 'used by the appeals court'. The district court used the terms 'steal' and 'stolen' once each. Here are the uses in context: --- Everyone agrees that no one can copy line-for-line someone else’s copyrighted computer program. When the line-by-line listings are different, however, some copyright owners have nonetheless accused others of stealing the “structure, sequence and organization” of the copyrighted work. --- --- CONCLUSION This order does not hold that Java API packages are free for all to use without license.It does not hold that the structure, sequence and organization of all computer programs may be stolen. Rather, it holds on the specific facts of this case, the particular elements replicated by Google were free for all to use under the Copyright Act --- I can see how on a cursory examination one might read "it does not hold that SSO of all programs may be stolen", and be confused that it implies "some SSO may be stolen", but the next sentence states that (in the court's view) the elements in question were free for all under the Copyright Act (which I interpret to mean: not copyright-eligible). Perhaps it would have scanned better had it read "It does not hold that SSO of *any* programs may be stolen" ? > Google found a work-around to remove the GPL, in certain circumstances, of > certain types of code, if, and it's a big if, they ultimately prevail. As a copyright license, the GPL can only cover copyright-eligible code. So if the code isn't copyright-eligible, then it's not really being *removed*, right? I don't know much about past precedent, so I don't know if this ruling was seen as a change from previous rulings. > Since Google, or someone, will eventually come along, copy all that > declaring code, verbatim, farm out the implementing code, and slap the ASL > license on the result, why use the GPL at all? I guess one could use contract law instead of copyright law here to try to effect a similar result to what copyleft provides, but what's the legal problem with Google re-implementing libraries of code? There are a number of people who promote copyleft as a useful mechanism for ensuring software freedom for everyone (or at least everyone with a computer and some basic knowledge). Google reimplementing existing libraries under a more permissive license may split some of the development activity around a particular project, and may encourage some companies and individuals to use the permissively-licensed versions of libraries and then not feel compelled to share back their improvements with the community or to provide the source for the binaries they distribute to their userbase, but that's Google's choice. (Just like it's my choice if I want to write really, really long sentences :-) But even with all of the might and clout that Google has, it still takes time and energy to rewrite libraries. Please note that API-compatible code can be implemented in various different ways that might affect speed, memory usage, etc. And so they don't bother to rewrite everything. That's why I'd argue that the GPL still has relevance even if the courts decide that the 'declaring code' isn't copyright-eligible. Cheers, --R
