Your arguments are very interesting, but my experience is that FSF has
very well thought out and consistent positions, so I would like to
abstain from entering into this subjectl
Kern
On 14-10-23 07:23 PM, thufir wrote:
On 14-10-22 06:43 AM, lkcl . wrote:
... where the creator of the GPL (Dr Stallman) has pointed out that
the entire GNU project would not even exist if they had been unable to
copy - verbatim - the APIs of the UNIX operating system that they
wished to replace.
This is why the FSF will never reverse its position. In order to
protect and be consistent with what was done years ago, the FSF will
have to be on the side of allowing verbatim copying of an API.
I would suggest to contrast that with:
'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.”' p 48, appeals court decision
I don't believe that the appeals court would say that the GNU project
was reverse engineered according to the standards of the quoted
Register of Copyrights exactly because of the fragment about creating
structure. I think it's very unfortunate that, for consistency, the
FSF is in a position where it cannot reconsider and say "yeah, uh,
maybe verbatim copying of an API isn't reverse engineering."
I didn't realize there was an exact parallel between what Google did
and what was done years ago for the GNU project.
I replied to another person who started a similar thread in the hopes
of getting the FSF to reconsider its position because this case isn't
settled, and the FSF files amicus briefs. I now see that the FSF is
institutionally incapable of re-evaluating the pros/cons because of
how GNU came about.
-Thufir
