|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 11:45 AM EDT |
Google (nor any other software developer) would probably not want to argue that
the API's fall under the GPL, because they would have to be copyrightable in
order for that to be the case, or for them to even need to make that argument.
If APIs are copyrightable, then unauthorized work-alike re-implementations
aren't allowed, and all sorts of critically important things (including the
re-implementation of unix for which the GPL was invented) don't happen.
Further, offers under GPL probably don't help Google, since they don't wish to
GPL their userspace. While Android could use more GPL code at the cost of
needing to educate vendors about how to do so safely, that's really not a path
Google wants to pursue. And the same limitations to copyright law which make it
possible for GPL software to run on a proprietary OS without needing the
permission of the copyright owner of that OS, mean that Google is not required
to obtain a copyright license (GPL or otherwise) from Oracle.
One even needs to be very careful about using the GPL offer to counter Oracle's
$(prohibited_number) and Ellison's people could take our stuff for free
arguments at more than emotional level, lest we end up saying that because
Linux is available under GPL, Linux has no monetary value and there should be no
remedy against anyone who violates the Linux copyrights (such as cut-rate device
vendors who habitually refuse to release kernel sources, and full-price ones who
habitually drag their feet about it).
Really, the GPL just isn't that relevant for Android, except as a worst-case
scenario rescue plan. If it comes to that, then relicensing under the
GPL-with-classpath exception probably saves Android from Oracle, but the
majority of software in existence today becomes victim to a thicket of
unauthorized-API-use claims from all directions.
In terms of helping the judge understand APIs, probably the most productive
thing that could be done is to drop the term "API" with the tendency
of its unfamiliarity to imply something concrete, and start referring to them
instead as simply "interfaces". Hopefully the flexibility of that
word will help the judge understand how the term applies - and is in conflict
with the concept of a copyrightable work of expression.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
