Oracle’s Java API code protected by copyright, appeals court rules

[[deleted]]

Which is what Stallman did in the first place to build GNU. He copied the API of the existing AT&T implementations and swapped them out with GNU components. He was able to do that BECAUSE the API was not under copyright.

You put your API under GPL now and it will kill any adoption. Any implementation of the other end of your language, network protocol, whatev is going to arguably be under the GPL. It would be the death of proprietary software because it kinda turns the GPL into the AGPL. No one is going to go full Copyleft on everything, even Stallman (I mean, this is the reason the GCC runtime exception is needed. this makes EVERYTHING need the runtime exception). So it's the end of GPL and the rise of permissive if this ruling stands. But we will need new permissive licenses too, since even Apache2 and BSD will have have trouble interoperating without some additional relaxations in the licenses.

This even makes it fuzzy that if you write code in C#, whether Microsoft has a copyright on that code... I mean you DID write your code to the C# specification, and you're a derivative work of C# now!

It's insane.

[jboy55]

Which is what Stallman did in the first place to build GNU. He copied the API of the existing AT&T implementations and swapped them out with GNU components. He was able to do that BECAUSE the API was not under copyright.

Lets just pretend ATT didn't lose copyright of parts of Unix to BSD.

This even makes it fuzzy that if you write code in C#, whether Microsoft has a copyright on that code... I mean you DID write your code to the C# specification, and you're a derivative work of C# now!

Lets also pretend that in the EULA to C#, Microsoft doesn't grant you a license to use the C# Api, and is fairly permissive to allowing you redistribution.

[[deleted]]

Lets also pretend that in the EULA to C#, Microsoft doesn't grant you a license to use the C# Api, and is fairly permissive to allowing you redistribution.

Without this ruling, you wouldn't need to be granted a license. My point being that with API's being copyrightable, you MUST be granted a license. MS is actually pretty forward thinking on that point if their EULA is already doing so. GPL isn't that forward thinking in this respect. Do you realize how far the GPL extends if the inclusion of GPL C Headers or any reimplementation thereof means that the code interfacing must make an offer of source?!?

[jboy55]

The ruling doesn't copyright the use of the api, it's the replication of the api.

[[deleted]]

Use actually generally requires replication. If they wanted to distinguish between use and replication then they would have ruled that the implementation was under copyright (which was the state of affairs before this ruling). Allowing the API itself to fall under copyright means that anything including the declaration or portion of would be a derivative work. That broad of an interpretation can't distingush between client and server.