Java would just be the start. Companies large and small would file suits arguing that anything setting up compatibility on the basis of APIs violates copyright. The industry would grind to a halt under the weight of litigation.
Not really, it would just mean that you should check your license before using an API. All of the major programming languages come with a license (including Java, and even Microsoft APIs), so you should be fine as far as that goes.
Even with this ruling, you should check your license for any API you use, that's just good sanitation. Otherwise you risk being in a fair-use copyright case which might not go the same way.
So for example, I want to implement simple drawing routines, ALL I HAVE TO DO is engage a lawfirm to spend a few days deliberating the licenses of existing drawing libraries, and periodically review my code with them.
That shouldn't be too burdensome for a high school student learning programming. Probably just cost a couple days lunch money.
So for example, I want to implement simple drawing routines, ALL I HAVE TO DO is engage a lawfirm to spend a few days deliberating the licenses of existing drawing libraries, and periodically review my code with them.
That would be unnecessary.
In any case, this ruling is a victory for free software.
yes, the ruling is a victory. The battle is won, now the minor matter of the rest of the war.
My point is that drawing routines are sufficiently rote that it isn't at all unlikely that by sitting down and writing a library from scratch (as many of us did in high school working on the old Apple ][) it isn't all that unlikely that my include file would strongly resemble someone else's even if I didn't even know it existed, much less if I was writing a drop-in replacement.
That is the situation with practically all header files. There exists no creativity there.
The entire industry has operated under that assumption from day one. That's why we have made the amount of progress we have for the last 70 years. It's a bit late to change the rules.
Oracle is trying to get the courts to change that just for them and is willing to burn a bunch of other people's money to do it.
That is the situation with practically all header files. There exists no creativity there.
That's definitely not true. In fact, if you personally wrote your own language, there is a zero percent chance you would ever come up with the phrase "system.out.println()" to print something to the console. It's just too ugly.
Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's supposed to do.
-- R. A. Heinlein
Java lives! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Java would just be the start. Companies large and small would file suits arguing that anything setting up compatibility on the basis of APIs violates copyright. The industry would grind to a halt under the weight of litigation.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really, it would just mean that you should check your license before using an API. All of the major programming languages come with a license (including Java, and even Microsoft APIs), so you should be fine as far as that goes.
Even with this ruling, you should check your license for any API you use, that's just good sanitation. Otherwise you risk being in a fair-use copyright case which might not go the same way.
Re:Java lives! (Score:2)
So for example, I want to implement simple drawing routines, ALL I HAVE TO DO is engage a lawfirm to spend a few days deliberating the licenses of existing drawing libraries, and periodically review my code with them.
That shouldn't be too burdensome for a high school student learning programming. Probably just cost a couple days lunch money.
Re: (Score:2)
So for example, I want to implement simple drawing routines, ALL I HAVE TO DO is engage a lawfirm to spend a few days deliberating the licenses of existing drawing libraries, and periodically review my code with them.
That would be unnecessary.
In any case, this ruling is a victory for free software.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, the ruling is a victory. The battle is won, now the minor matter of the rest of the war.
My point is that drawing routines are sufficiently rote that it isn't at all unlikely that by sitting down and writing a library from scratch (as many of us did in high school working on the old Apple ][) it isn't all that unlikely that my include file would strongly resemble someone else's even if I didn't even know it existed, much less if I was writing a drop-in replacement.
Re: (Score:2)
If the situation you described happened, it would be de minimis and not copyrightable. That was already true before this case.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the situation with practically all header files. There exists no creativity there.
The entire industry has operated under that assumption from day one. That's why we have made the amount of progress we have for the last 70 years. It's a bit late to change the rules.
Oracle is trying to get the courts to change that just for them and is willing to burn a bunch of other people's money to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the situation with practically all header files. There exists no creativity there.
That's definitely not true. In fact, if you personally wrote your own language, there is a zero percent chance you would ever come up with the phrase "system.out.println()" to print something to the console. It's just too ugly.