I wish you, and cwyers, would provide better reasoning as to why this is all FUD before decrying it as such.
I'm not seeing how "doesn't harm the ecosystem" is a fair-use defense. What logic are you using to arrive at a fair use argument for Linux's copying of Unix APIs that doesn't apply to Google's case?
I'll pose the same examples to you as I did in another thread: IIRC (it was a long time ago) Window's APIs closely resemble or are exactly like OS/2's PM APIs. Windows, one might argue, definitely harmed OS/2's "ecosystem", since the latter is virtually extinct in the mind of the public. Is that a violation of copyright?
Especially since nobody thought APIs were copyrightable right up until Oracle decided to declare them as such, nobody has put anything regarding them in licenses. Nobody has thought that they even needed a license, much less obtained one, and a lot of effort has been built on top of products that are backwards compatible with things from many decades ago.
You know the great thing about copyright? Nobody has to say anything. If it's creative work then you automatically have a copyright. You don't need a (c) 1988-2019 for that.
I agree that Oracle isn't trying to create a ruling that obviates fair use; but assume you believe that the appellate court's ruling is correct, and APIs are copyrightable, how does fair use cover implementing an API for compatibility?
> Oracle's argument about Android and its use of Java is that Android did not run Java apps; it ran Java code, but it did not implement enough of the Java API surface to let you run Java apps unmodified.
So what? Partial compatibility is still meaningful in software engineering, and should allow libraries to run on both. Are you saying that if Google had fully implemented all of the Java APIs, it would have been fair use?
Further, can you ground the above reasoning (that fair use covers API copying, and that Google's partial implementation is material here) in the actual rulings for the case? I don't remember any of this from when I read them, though I do admit that was some time ago.
> WINE, for example, is not ruled impermissible by the sort of ruling Oracle seeks.
Why not? Simply because you cannot write a .exe that would run in WINE, but not in Windows?
Further, what if the example was instead Linux? Linux implements Unix's APIs, but also adds other APIs. You can use existing "Unix" code in new, Linux-only apps that won't run on other *nix OSs.
Linux and OS X implement the same APIs as Unix. Windows implements the same (or very similar) APIs as PM in OS/2.
Most modern PCs reimplement the IBM PC "API", hence "PC compatible".
> In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
(—Copyright Law of the United States[2])
APIs are the idea that binds components together. Even if you come to understand the interface by reading a programmatic description of it (e.g., a function signature), and reimplement it, and your language forces you to use the same exact wording to match the signature (b/c it's an API), there's nothing different here than the same exception given to the way that a the raw listing of ingredients in a recipe is not copyrightable (and this is called out as an example of such by copyright.gov[1]).
The appellate court erred in its application of the law.
Additionally, this was said on one of the amicus briefs,
> reversing the District Court would dangerously undermine the settled expectations of computer scientists and the entire computer industry that rely upon the open nature of APIs
(—Martin Fowler, Bruce Schneier, Bjarne Stroustrup, et al. were signatories to this amicus brief.)
The decision, were the industry to actually pay attention to it, would wreak havoc on the state of software engineering.
That just means that Apple's implementation is allowed to use the Unix trademark. It really doesn't add much of anything to the copyright discussion, especially since The Open Group doesn't own Unix copyrights, just the trademark.
I wish you, and cwyers, would provide better reasoning as to why this is all FUD before decrying it as such.
I'm not seeing how "doesn't harm the ecosystem" is a fair-use defense. What logic are you using to arrive at a fair use argument for Linux's copying of Unix APIs that doesn't apply to Google's case?
I'll pose the same examples to you as I did in another thread: IIRC (it was a long time ago) Window's APIs closely resemble or are exactly like OS/2's PM APIs. Windows, one might argue, definitely harmed OS/2's "ecosystem", since the latter is virtually extinct in the mind of the public. Is that a violation of copyright?
Especially since nobody thought APIs were copyrightable right up until Oracle decided to declare them as such, nobody has put anything regarding them in licenses. Nobody has thought that they even needed a license, much less obtained one, and a lot of effort has been built on top of products that are backwards compatible with things from many decades ago.