|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 08:34 AM EST |
I'd like to see an Amicus in support of Google by Samba.org...
;)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 09:02 AM EST |
Wine, ReactOS, Mono, Samba, the package that implements
enough of the API to allow wireless NIC Windows drivers to
work on Linux. I'm sure there are more. Then a big area web
services, which is all about APIs and it's easy to replace a web
service just by reimplementing it's API which has to be
distributed in an easy manner so that clients can actually
connect to them.
The scary part of this argument is that it could be used to claim
ownership over programs written in those languages that by
necessity implement an interface declared in the API. An
interface is just the method declarations with no implementing
functionality.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Copyright for first API - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 10:58 AM EST
- BINGO! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 06:35 PM EST
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, March 01 2013 @ 10:09 AM EST |
I see a conspiracy here between Microsoft and Oracle to
put the boot to
Google. Losing the right to employ Java's
SSO in Android would be a staggering
blow to Google.
Both Microsoft and Oracle would do just about anything to
destroy Android, whatever other benefits they may incur from
a favourable
ruling, which actually could be a mixed
blessing to them.
There must
be instances where Microsoft or Oracle
themselves use somebody else's API. We
need to identify
those instances if we can and point out the
hypocrisy.
Another issue obliquely related comes to mind. In the
event
of a ruling where the SSO is deemed copyrightable, a
complication may arise
when calling an Open Source DLL from
a proprietary program. AFAIK, that is
allowed under the GPL,
with the condition that if you distribute the DLL along
with
your program, you must also distribute its source code.
However, your
proprietary software is necessarily going to
employ the SSO of that DLL in
order to interface with it.
Hypothetically, could then the copyright holder of
that
interface stop you from using the GPL'd DLL in that manner,
unless you
also open the source for your proprietary code?
Now this may be out to
lunch, but could such a potential
be used in retaliation against
Microsoft/Oracle? Could they
be threatened by such a thing into dropping the
appeal even?
These two - Microsoft & Oracle - are not doing the world any
favour by insisting the SSO of a program can be copyrighted.
These companies
need to know what they are attempting to
accomplish is unacceptable
behaviour! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 03 2013 @ 03:46 AM EST |
when they attempted a defense that raised the question whether or not their
API's structure sequence order were covered under copyright law. They got
their answer.
CAFE maybe the one force that can control the beast that
Oracle let out of the box. To reverse the federal court's decision they
will have to determine API's are not functional and can be protected by
copyright. Can they then ignore a thorny problem? How can a language be both
open source but unusable if its API's structure, sequence and order can be
copyrighted? More unforeseen consequences when the box was opened. But CAFE
might breeze through that issue without scratch.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|