Op-ed: Oracle attorney says Google’s court victory might kill the GPL
"The developer community may be celebrating today what it perceives as a victory in Oracle v. Google. Google won a verdict that an unauthorized, commercial, competitive, harmful use of software in billions of products is fair use. No copyright expert would have ever predicted such a use would be considered fair. Before celebrating, developers should take a closer look. Not only will creators everywhere suffer from this decision if it remains intact, but the free software movement itself now faces substantial jeopardy." -- source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/op-ed-oracle-attorney-says-google... Interesting article, I have to say. The verdict might throw a spanner in what is considered "derivative work" in terms of GPL code. Companies using GPL libraries will no longer have to open-source their code, as it is simple considered fair use? Cheers, Peter -- Peter Reutemann Dept. of Computer Science University of Waikato, NZ +64 (7) 858-5174 http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/ http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
On Mon, 30 May 2016 12:37:52 +1200, Peter Reutemann wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/op-ed-oracle-attorney-says-google...
Interesting article, I have to say.
I was trying to figure out where it goes so hilariously wrong. I narrowed it down to this part: ...because the Java APIs have been open, any use of them was justified and all licensing restrictions should be disregarded. In other words, if you offer your software on an open and free basis, any use is fair use. At one point it is talking about “API use”, and suddenly that becomes “any use”.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/op-ed-oracle-attorney-says-google...
Interesting article, I have to say.
I was trying to figure out where it goes so hilariously wrong. I narrowed it down to this part:
...because the Java APIs have been open, any use of them was justified and all licensing restrictions should be disregarded. In other words, if you offer your software on an open and free basis, any use is fair use.
At one point it is talking about “API use”, and suddenly that becomes “any use”.
But that doesn't make the problem go away. For instance, imagine a GPL plugin-framework (eg image processing pipeline) which requires you only to implement an interface to make your plugin usable in the framework (eg FFT filter). Then just implementing (or "using") the interface would be considered "fair use" and commercial derivatives would no longer be considered derivative work. A company wouldn't be required to distribute their source code anymore. I'm not familiar with the Linux kernel source code, but I could imagine that this would affect it as well: implementing a driver interface is no longer derivative work. Cheers, Peter -- Peter Reutemann Dept. of Computer Science University of Waikato, NZ +64 (7) 858-5174 http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/ http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
On Mon, 30 May 2016 14:06:04 +1200, Peter Reutemann wrote:
For instance, imagine a GPL plugin-framework (eg image processing pipeline) which requires you only to implement an interface to make your plugin usable in the framework (eg FFT filter). Then just implementing (or "using") the interface would be considered "fair use" and commercial derivatives would no longer be considered derivative work.
I never thought they were. It has been a long-standing assumption among open-source developers that APIs are not copyrightable. Examples: 1) The Linux kernel developers never considered code using the userland Linux APIs to be “derivative works”. 2) The FSF has long resisted adding a plugin API to GCC, precisely because they were worried it would be used to evade the GPL on GCC itself.
For instance, imagine a GPL plugin-framework (eg image processing pipeline) which requires you only to implement an interface to make your plugin usable in the framework (eg FFT filter). Then just implementing (or "using") the interface would be considered "fair use" and commercial derivatives would no longer be considered derivative work.
I never thought they were. It has been a long-standing assumption among open-source developers that APIs are not copyrightable.
Examples: 1) The Linux kernel developers never considered code using the userland Linux APIs to be “derivative works”. 2) The FSF has long resisted adding a plugin API to GCC, precisely because they were worried it would be used to evade the GPL on GCC itself.
But as soon as you use other code from the project, other than the interface, it would be considered derivative work? Cheers, Peter -- Peter Reutemann Dept. of Computer Science University of Waikato, NZ +64 (7) 858-5174 http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/ http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
On Mon, 30 May 2016 14:42:56 +1200, Peter Reutemann wrote:
But as soon as you use other code from the project, other than the interface, it would be considered derivative work?
That’s a legal concept, and IANAL. But I would assume so. That is the point where fair-use/fair-dealing concepts could come into play.
But as soon as you use other code from the project, other than the interface, it would be considered derivative work?
That’s a legal concept, and IANAL. But I would assume so.
That is the point where fair-use/fair-dealing concepts could come into play.
Yes, it will be interesting to see follow-up lawsuits involving GPL projects and what is then being judged derivative or fair-use. Cheers, Peter -- Peter Reutemann Dept. of Computer Science University of Waikato, NZ +64 (7) 858-5174 http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/ http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
On Mon, 30 May 2016 15:04:08 +1200, Peter Reutemann wrote:
Yes, it will be interesting to see follow-up lawsuits involving GPL projects and what is then being judged derivative or fair-use.
I should jolly bloody well hope not. The only “follow-up lawsuits” I want to see are against Oracle for using other people’s APIs, where I expect it to argue the exact opposite of what it’s been saying in this case. Whereupon the verdict that APIs can be copyrighted would, hopefully, be overturned.
Yes, it will be interesting to see follow-up lawsuits involving GPL projects and what is then being judged derivative or fair-use.
I should jolly bloody well hope not. The only “follow-up lawsuits” I want to see are against Oracle for using other people’s APIs, where I expect it to argue the exact opposite of what it’s been saying in this case.
Whereupon the verdict that APIs can be copyrighted would, hopefully, be overturned.
Here's another article: "Google’s fair use victory is good for open source" http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/06/googles-fair-use-victory-is-good-... Cheers, Peter -- Peter Reutemann Dept. of Computer Science University of Waikato, NZ +64 (7) 858-5174 http://www.cms.waikato.ac.nz/~fracpete/ http://www.data-mining.co.nz/
participants (2)
-
Lawrence D'Oliveiro -
Peter Reutemann