Google: Oracle Java win will kill software development, so SCOTUS must rule
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
So although the idea of copyrighting an API strikes me as generally stupid and it could clearly be problematic for some developers in the short term, surely this isn't really that much of a hassle in the long term? People will just explicitly state whether or not they want to allow others to implement their API?
I don't really consider that an improvement, but neither does it seem all that disastrous.
I'm also curious how this will affect the geography of software development. Since the SCOTUS' jurisdiction only covers the US but there are international copyright treaties, will this decision affect development outside the US?
It'll be exciting to see how many of Oracle's APIs are 100% derivative of some software released under Copyleft licenses... ;)
Is public inheritance and interface implementation no longer allowed in Java? I can think of several ways to duplicate parts of the Java API. I don’t see how courts will draw a legal distinction.
> The problems will come when it is claimed that some other thing is really just an API, and also subject to this ruling.
This is not so simple. The court ruled only about a particular case that concerns an API under the "traditional" definition (the only thing we used to call API until not long ago) -- an API that is actual code -- and not other things that some are calling APIs, such as protocols (so-called REST "APIs"). One cannot simply claim that the ruling applies to other kinds of things, like protocols, regardless of whether programmers think they are similar or even "essentially the same." For example, in the US programs are protected by copyright but not patents while algorithms are protected by patents but not copyright. I imagine that at least part of the reason for this distinction can be found here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102
(a) Copyright protection subsists... in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression...
(b) 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.
A program (and an API) are some text "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" while an algorithm (and a protocol) are an idea described in some text (although the description text itself may be copyrighted; an algorithm book, including the pseudocode of the algorithms, is copyrighted, but the algorithms themselves are not). Ideas can be covered by patents, not copyright.
> Is public inheritance and interface implementation no longer allowed in Java?
Leaving aside the fact that Java is 100% open source and the license explicitly allows this kind of use (and in a non-viral way thanks to "the classpath exception")[1], your question is similar to, if a recording is copyrighted, is listening to it no longer allowed? One can make fair use of copyrighted works. This would not only apply to subtyping or calling APIs, which, like listening to music, is obviously their intended use but even -- and this is implied in the discussed ruling -- copying them and implementing them in order to enable third-party interoperability (the court ruled that in this particular case Google did not make fair use of the APIs[2])
[1]: http://openjdk.java.net/legal/gplv2+ce.html
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google...
But this case would be a very significant precedent...
Second, companies don't sue you just to make a point or to show they're right; success is never guaranteed, and corporate lawsuits are expensive -- not only in direct monetary cost but in PR costs as well. Companies use lawsuits when there's actual serious damage done to them which they want to recuperate, or to prevent such imminent danger of serious damage.
If you cause serious damage you should expect to be sued regardless of whether you did something wrong or not, and even if you do something wrong but don't cause serious damage, chances of a lawsuit are low[1]. So while certain things may certainly increase your exposure, what puts you in danger is the harm you do more than the rules you break.
Projects that mimic or port the Windows API would be in danger -- whether now or before the lawsuit under discussion -- when they can cause serious damage to MS.
[1]: This may be different for trademark violations; I think trademarks require vigilant defense or they could be lost.
It's unbelievable that Oracle is still pursuing this, despite the obvious consequences _for its own survival_. Their main product copied APIs and even the SQL language itself.
This is a really interesting point. Presumably IBM owns the copyright on SQL ("SEQUEL"); is there anything that prevents them from suing Oracle (and everyone else) for royalties?
Oracle probably has a good couple parents that are absolutely essential to IBM or that would have already happened. MAD works.
Have they made any statement on why that? I don't use their podcast app, but that's particularly egregious.
I've seen similar stuff with Android Auto/Google Assistant requiring Web & Location History; but I gave them a bit more benefit of the doubt because that data could be used for needed context to answer voice queries, and I could see them not wanting to create special cases that did not use those permissions for business reasons.
Okay, so you don't like how their podcast app works, but how does this violate your rights?
I use BeyondPod, so I wasn't aware Google had any offering in this space.
https://support.google.com/googleplaymusic/answer/6343833?hl...
They also apparently have a standalone podcast app:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...
https://www.androidcentral.com/google-listen-officially-dead
How many have used copy and paste? Hopefully all of them.
In my opinion, this will be bigger than proprietary languages and cover drop-in replacements for pretty much any proprietary code, thus providing yet another way to lock customers into a particular product.
Edit: _sigh_ The downvotes without any reason hurt. See [1]. Since OpenJDK is GPL v2, and since TCK tests have been open sourced and Java EE given to Eclipse, I would call the Java ecosystem fully open source. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong of course.
We're not talking about re-implementing the JDK/JRE spec; the author mentioned he/she wants to use only open source languages...
If Oracle wins, it logically goes then AWS would not be allowed to provide MongoDB interface to DocumentDB.
If I think back in time, Java was just reference implementation of the API. Sun JDK VM being one implementation of it, OpenJDK being the other. By that extension, Google wrote its own VM for it, that worked on mobile phone OS.
See: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dotnet/corefx/master/PATEN...
In terms of re-implementing the language, I believe that C# is just as free as Rust in this regard; it can be done without fear of a lawsuit.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/07/micro...
Java was also unique in that Sun was only charging licensing fees for mobile implementations, providing motivation for Google to build their own implementation of the language. With mobile devices being as high powered as they are, I don't think that model makes sense anymore.
B. What about Scala? Would you say Scala is a "good fit" for people leaving Java because it's also built on top of the JVM? Or would it be a "bad fit" because the idioms and functional-nature of Scala are vastly different than Java? Or how about Kotlin?
I'm not thinking about "successor" in terms of "Java-specific" design patterns. I'm thinking successor in terms of - can Rust, with concurrency as a first-class-citizen and C-like perf with a safer programming model, replace Java for many of the "higher-level" applications that would've typically been written in Java?
A Java programmer would be so confused by Rust.
My current project has me working primarily in a mix of C++ and Java, and I would love nothing more than to rewrite the whole thing in Rust. Sadly, I did my job too well the first time around, and it's hard to justify a full rewrite of a codebase that already works.
(Or I guess you could write Scala in a non-functional, Java-y way, but that would defeat the purpose of using Scala...).
I just don't understand what makes java more appealing than C++. I guess the garbage collector? I just wish python was just in the same league of performance of java...
It's the fastest and most mature platform for its level of complexity around (namely, less than C++), C# is a close and viable second and outshines it in some ways - and can be thought of as a descendant in some ways, if you squint a little bit (of Microsoft Java).
That's a bit of hyperbole, because it requires a company to sacrifice developer good will (if it has any, unlike Oracle) to claim ownership/copying.
Also, where they reasonably can, people need to stop building on tech owned by companies they despise. Of course this is not reasonable in many cases, but for me, I won't use Graal and will actively tell others not to because it's easy not to. I don't have a problem w/ Google or FB like many others on here, but if you did, not using Go or React is probably unreasonable, but not using Google Cloud might be reasonable.
Also, we need to start holding privileged developers accountable for their chosen employer. I'm not talking about the underprivileged intern, I'm talking about the Oracle engineer that continues to work there at this time. If it's on your resume of late, I won't hire you. I also might not accept your PR if you are employed there.
Then they can't leave. I'm not sure that's what you want.
It is, my statement is about industry-wide stigma henceforth, not specific literal effects on existing employees.
A mass culture of "If you have X on your resume, I won't hire you" puts pressure on people who have X to stay in the space where X is true rather than try to exit it. It could put pressure on incoming software engineers to not join X, but if X's perks are good enough, will it? I'm reminded of the fact that undocumented immigrants in the US rose after the beginnings of tightened border security during the "war on drugs"---if the flow back and forth is easy, people flow back and forth. But if the flow is blocked, people will tend to stay where they are (or, worse, migrate to where the perks are better...).
It is true that GraalVM has a proprietary version too, that AFAIK has extra features, but the open source version is impressive on its own.
What developers really need to do is to stop building on platforms based on how much they like a company. Stop treating companies like sports teams. Your feelings for a company are completely irrelevant because its culture can always change, or it can be sold to the highest bidder.
Things that matter much more:
1. Is it Open Source? This is important for having control. E.g. no matter what Oracle does next, there is now a community dedicated to maintaining and improving OpenJDK and in fact OpenJDK has cool features that Oracle’s Java does not, like a cool new low latency GC contributed by Red Hat.
2. Does it have an ecosystem around it?
GraalVM is new, but it piggybacks on Java’s ecosystem and Java is huge. In fact that’s also why Google piggybacked on Java too.
Speaking of which, I’m not defending Oracle’s lawsuit, I think they did it because they are greedy bastards, however the elephant in the room is that Google fragmented the Java ecosystem.
It is 2019 and Android’s SDK still does not support Java 8’s bytecode.
So how is Google any more special than Microsoft and what they did with Java (J++) back in the day? I don’t see a difference. And now the Java ecosystem can’t move on to Java 8 due to Android.
We have a huge double standard. Back in the day when Sun sued Microsoft people cheered for Sun.
Thank you for saving good employees from a bad boss.
An assumption at best. Those of us that have the leverage to choose our employers can be judged by that choice.
Not true. It's not a predictor of anything and I never claimed it was. I said that is a feature that is a disqualifier, especially in the current market of employer/employee choice. There are many other features like this too, including the attitude presented by your comment.
And who told you these (or any other) people are looking forward to be hired by you?
How about we attach an "industry wide stigma" (sic) on you for proposing something so inane and inconsiderate?
Maybe if you get fired under such pressure on your employer and can't find a job you'd reconsider how nice "blacklisting" of the type you propose is?
That's a little ridiculous.