[JoshTriplett]

On the one hand, this would have serious implications for compatible FOSS reimplementations of proprietary APIs, such as Wine, libc, emulators, etc.

On the other hand, this would make it far easier to enforce copyleft licenses like the GPL.

I'm one of the people who provided text and examples filed in the EFF's amicus brief against, and on balance I'm not a fan of stricter copyright like this, but it's interesting to consider how this ruling could be used positively.

[billsix]

I'd be curious to hear RMS's stance on the issue, but I'm guessing he would agree with Oracle. http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-...

[marcosdumay]

That's not the same issue.

He's talking about distributing code that is not functional unless linked with a GPL library. Not about distributing code that replaces such GPL library.

Oracle is basically saying that you can not write a compatible implementation of Java.

[comex]

It's partially relevant to the plan Mr. Haible had to get around the GPL by putting the onus on the user to combine readline and CLISP:

> I built a libnoreadline.a that can be linked together with lisp.a, replacing libreadline.a .

> I will reorganize the distribution into 2 independent parts: > * clisp.lzh containing lisp.a and libnoreadline.a, > * readline.tar.Z containing libreadline.a and its source.

> The first one is enough to build a CLISP executable. It contains no GNU parts.

If readline's API were copyrighted and unreimplementable, this would still be infringement. However, this is not actually the argument rms used; rather, he said:

> The FSF position would be that this is still one program, which has only been disguised as two. The reason it is still one program is that the one part clearly shows the intention for incorporation of the other part.

Who knows whether that would hold up in court or not.

Incidentally, these days (well, since 1997 or so?) we have editline, which, rather than being a sort of low-effort dummy implementation like the proposed "libnoreadline", is a full-fledged BSD-licensed readline replacement which provides a readline compatibility API. One possible outcome of this case, in which Google loses on both copyrightability and fair use, would make it arguable (not certain - Java is much larger than readline) that editline is infringing the GPL, which would be amusing.

[sounds]

I assume RMS would say that Java is non-free, and that the best move here would be to create a free compiler and runtime -- i.e. a new language.

This stands to reason, as one of the first things RMS did in his efforts to advance Free Software was create a free compiler (gcc) and a free editor (emacs).

He might note that gcc is not meant to replace all other languages. It is just an example of a well-made and libre compiler.

[pornel]

I'm not sure. His main argument in this case was that distribution of a non-GPL program with intention of letting user link with a GPL library was a "subterfuge".

Google's case is different. They didn't write Android so users can choose between a dummy libDoesNotRunAnything or wink, wink unlicensed Oracle JVM.

[nickysielicki]

Very interesting link, thanks for sharing.

From reading that, you can be near certain that RMS would agree.

[JoshTriplett]

Or that he would have in 1992. The landscape has changed quite a bit since then.

And the terminology has improved greatly since then; for instance, nowadays the requirement would be described as making CLISP "GPL-compatible", rather than putting it under the GPL.

[higherpurpose]

So it will be used 99% negatively and 1% positively. That doesn't sound like a great outcome to me.

Also, killing FOSS reimplementations of proprietary APIs is exactly why Microsoft filed a briefing in favor of Oracle the last time Oracle won at the CAFC. That and also the fact that Microsoft hates Google much more than Google hates Microsoft behind the scenes, which is why it keeps extorting Android OEMs and wants Oracle to win in this case.

[codecamper]

But how often are laws used positively?

[wmeredith]

This is an overly cynical view. The vast majority of laws are used positively. The are the foundation of this country. When they are abused it makes headlines (sometimes). When everyone gets to work and back safely and can afford to pay the mortgage and buy a big screen, it's just business as usual.

[codecamper]

I'm asking that based on what I've heard from a friend who runs a VC backed company. He said he needed VC largely because an incumbent in his category decided to sue him rather than compete. The lawsuit was rather frivolous, but when you get a bunch of people with a dim view of computer programming involved, then you need lawyers. And lawyers are EXPENSIVE. They are much much much more expensive than computer programmers. And then it becomes not so fun to run a company. It was about writing great software. Now it's about defending yourself in court. Total nightmare.

[wmeredith]

That's a pretty nightmarish scenario, and I sympathize with your friend. However, it does nothing to convince me that most laws are used for evil.

[fapjacks]

I firmly believe that laws provide psychological boundaries for most people (in that I believe most people are neutral good, lawful good or neutral evil), and provide tools for some to abuse others (the lawful evil). Given a perfect distribution, or even a bell curve, I think yes, most uses of law are not used for evil purposes. But there is a significant segment of the spectrum that does. Of course, in my purely anecdotal system based on Dungeons and Dragons. :P

[notdanariely]

Dan Ariely's recent book titled "Dishonesty" presents a lot of research that supports this. His thesis (in part) is that people tend to cheat / lie right up until the point they can no longer internally think of themselves as decent people.

In this interpretation, the legal system is a reasonably objective proxy to inform people how far they are across the line. This suggests that even unenforced laws can help establish an acceptable norm, so people have an external comparison.

[JoshTriplett]

In my opinion, far too many people are lawful neutral, and far too few are neutral good.

[AnthonyMouse]

> The vast majority of laws are used positively.

I find that a sensible way to look at it is that laws that are used are bad laws. Because almost everyone follows sensible laws so they only need to be litigated in rare outlier cases. By contrast, bad laws end up in the courts continuously because they're susceptible to abuse by dishonest parties.

So the vast majority of laws are used negatively, because good laws don't have to be used.

[laumars]

Emulators are a tricky one because they often require a BIOS file which does break copyright.

[JoshTriplett]

No more so than the games, and some emulators have reimplemented BIOSes.

[laumars]

> No more so than the games

It goes without saying that copying games is illegal. Well, bar a few caveats which seldom apply to people who run emulators.

> some emulators have reimplemented BIOSes

I'm sure some do but many don't - hence my point.

[JoshTriplett]

> It goes without saying that copying games is illegal. Well, bar a few caveats which seldom apply to people who run emulators.

Obtaining ROMs for games you own may or may not be, depending on your jurisdiction; in any case, it seems entirely ethical to have ROMs for games you own.

Likewise for BIOSes.

[stinkytaco]

I'm just going to play devil's advocate here, just for the sake of discussion, not because I believe it or not, but I think you could argue that obtaining ROMs for games you own is not ethical. The "phase shifting" argument is never one that held much water legally and certainly the industry would argue that if you want to use the content in a different form (i.e. an emulator), that you should pay for that additional right. It is a copy, after all. In the same way that the music industry would argue you can't upgrade all your vinyl records to mp3 without paying again. For example, should I be able to get Photoshop for all available platforms just because I happen to own one copy?

This, of course, brings us into the thorny world of whether copyright even makes sense in the software business. Copying seems to be an essential part of using a computer (copying runtimes into memory, caching web pages to your computer, etc.) so it may be an outmoded way of thinking about protecting IP.

[JoshTriplett]

> In the same way that the music industry would argue you can't upgrade all your vinyl records to mp3 without paying again.

The music industry would love it if you had to pay for music multiple times, but you can nonetheless rip your own CDs. Or vinyl records with the right equipment.

[laumars]

ethics != law