> Should Oracle win this case, ... Free Software ...
Hmmm... First Free Software project that will dye after this is WINE that implements Windows API ( https://www.winehq.org/ )
Hmmm... First Free Software project that will dye after this is WINE that implements Windows API ( https://www.winehq.org/ )
""" In another example from the 1990s, an open-source developer created a program called WINE, which al- lowed developers to enable Windows applications to run on computers that used the Linux open-source system, without explicit authorization from Microsoft. Gratz & Lemley, supra, at 611. To create WINE, the developer “use[d] the same hierarchy of function names” of various Windows APIs. Id. at 612. Years later, Microsoft created “the inverse of WINE,” reimplementing the structure of certain Linux APIs to create the Windows Subsystem for Linux, a program that allowed Linux programs to run on Windows. Ibid. The Windows-Linux experience shows that reuse of functional code is a “two- way street” that benefits both the original creator and the follow-on developer—and ultimately the consumer. """
Not to mention there's no monetary chest at the end of that fight (and the creation of WSL wouldn't bode well for them if they were to make a case at all).
In addition I would be a bit surprised if wine has copied 11000 lines of header files from windows, arranged identically to Microsoft Windows source code.
It seems you are arguing mainly because the user base is so much smaller it does not count. The law does not work that way.
Windows SDK contains tens of thousands of lines in header files for those DLLs Wine implements. Not saying Wine copied them outright, but the opportunity is clearly there.
It would be up to Microsoft to demonstrate that Wine impact the market for Windows license sales. I strongly doubt they can do that regardless how much they have spent on documentation and developer tools. Wine does not replace the need for an operative system, and if the usage ever become widespread enough to harm the market for windows then developers would just support programs natively for Linux, side stepping the need for wine.
Wine is not a market substitute for Microsoft windows, which is the first consideration that courts look at. Courts would then look if there is a potential existence of a licensing market (ie Microsoft licensing out the ABI) which again does not seems very likely. Failing those two tests it would be a rather uphill battle for Microsoft to demonstrate Wine impact on the market for Windows license sales.
Copyright law needs to be clarified to allow this without licence. Just like you're allowed to refer to a competitor's brand if you follow the rules in trademark law. It's one of those things where you think legislation should be rushing to fix it to remove uncertainty. Instead, a good chunk of senators is comfortable letting the Ellisons of this world make other people's life harder in negative-sum games.
This would be somewhat concerning if we were talking about Ballmer-era Microsoft where they were going around extorting companies that used Linux. Although nothing was really stopping them then. They had a good system of picking companies one by one, being threatening and making them sign "licensing deals" without ever needing to go to court or publicly say which patents were being infringed. (Probably all FAT stuff. Google eventually had the good sense to stop using FAT on Android, but it was slow going because if you haven't noticed Google manoeuvres about as well as a freight train). With the amount they've changed under Nadella, I'm not sure present day Microsoft even could do that.
But for present-day examples we're going to need to search elsewhere.