<div dir="ltr"><div>While I haven't closely followed the details of Oracle vs Google, purely from a layman and business standpoint it seems clear that Google did create Android / Dalvik exactly to be interoperable with Java. This means one can run the same Java source code on either platform and the java.* namespace offers the same packages and functionality. But importantly, interoperability also goes the other way: Android was compatible with the millions of developers familiar with Java syntax and standard libraries.</div><div><br></div><div>If I remember correctly, Oracle did find early on one function implementation that had indeed been copy pasted from OpenJDK to Android. But this was so minor (and obvious) it is not part of the issues decided in higher courts.</div><div><br></div><div></div><div>henrik<br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:43 AM Pamela Chestek <<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
The below is all well and good, also the law in the United States,
and not at issue in Google v. Oracle. Google v. Oracle isn't about
interoperability of devices or software. Android was not created to
interface with Java or as a replacement for Java for those devices
or programs running Java. The case is about whether it was lawful to
copy portions of software to enhance the ease of development of
software for an entirely different software ecosystem. I'm not
expressing an opinion, simply pointing out that Google v. Oracle is
a different factual situation than what everyone seems to be
concerned about. <br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
919-800-8033<br>
<a class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614moz-cite-prefix">On 6/30/2019 5:51 PM, Lawrence Rosen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">Thank you
again Patrice-Emanuel, and thanks also to the EU for a much
clearer explanation of functional software interfaces
("APIs") than the brief but equally relevant provision in 17
USC 102(b). I hope the US Supreme Court is as clear in its
decision in the Oracle v. Google case. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">OSI should
let "strong copyleft" die peacefully among the mistaken
theories of open source in any future licenses it approves.
It is not a positive feature of "software freedom."<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt">Best, /Larry</span><span style="font-size:8pt;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><b>From:</b>
License-discuss
<a class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:license-discuss-bounces@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank"><license-discuss-bounces@lists.opensource.org></a> <b>On
Behalf Of </b>Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz via License-discuss<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, June 30, 2019 1:13 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Bruce Perens <a class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bruce@perens.com" target="_blank"><bruce@perens.com></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
<a class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pe.schmitz@googlemail.com" target="_blank"><pe.schmitz@googlemail.com></a>;
<a class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-discuss] [License-review]
Copyright on APIs<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">Hi Bruce,<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">This is
explicit law if you read Recitals 10 and 15 of <span class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614gmail-msohyperlink"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)"><a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32009L0024&from=EN" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(5,99,193)">Directive
2009/24/EC</span></a></span></span>)<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">At the
contrary of "articles", recitals does not need to be
transposed in national law, as requested in the directive
process.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">However, they
are part of EU law as well.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">Recitals could
not contradict articles (in such very hypothetical case
they would have poor binding value).<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">But in the
case of Directive, there is no contradiction between
recitals and articles and - in may opinion - these
recitals would be used by the Court of Justice of the EU
to interpret the Directive.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">This is just
my opinion, since the Directive was not written originally
with a focus on open source, but the spirit looks clear.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">The recitals
are reproduced hereafter:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"> (10) The
function of a computer program is to communicate and work
together with other components of a computer system and
with users and, for this purpose, a logical and, where
appropriate, physical interconnection and interaction is
required to permit all elements of software and hardware
to work with other software and hardware and with users in
all the ways in which they are intended to function. The
parts of the program which provide for such
interconnection and interaction between elements of
software and hardware are generally known as ‘interfaces’.
This functional interconnection and interaction is
generally known as ‘interoperability’; such
interoperability can be defined as the ability to exchange
information and mutually to use the information which has
been exchanged. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"> (15) The
unauthorised reproduction, translation, adaptation or
transformation of the form of the code in which a copy of
a computer program has been made available constitutes an
infringement of the exclusive rights of the author.
Nevertheless, circumstances may exist when such a
reproduction of the code and translation of its form are
indispensable to obtain the necessary information to
achieve the interoperability of an independently created
program with other programs. It has therefore to be
considered that, in these limited circumstances only,
performance of the acts of reproduction and translation by
or on behalf of a person having a right to use a copy of
the program is legitimate and compatible with fair
practice and must therefore be deemed not to require the
authorisation of the rightholder. An objective of this
exception is to make it possible to connect all components
of a computer system, including those of different
manufacturers, so that they can work together. Such an
exception to the author's exclusive rights may not be used
in a way which prejudices the legitimate interests of the
rightholder or which conflicts with a normal exploitation
of the program. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">Le dim. 30
juin 2019 à 00:26, Bruce Perens <<a href="mailto:bruce@perens.com" target="_blank">bruce@perens.com</a>>
a écrit :<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204);border-style:none none none solid;border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">Is this a
doctrine, or explicit law?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">On Sat,
Jun 29, 2019, 13:59 Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz via
License-discuss <<a href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204);border-style:none none none solid;border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">As far
the European law could be applicable, I just confirm
that, for the purpose of interoperability between
several components and when you are the legitimate
owner or the legitimate licensee of these
components, there is a copyright exception regarding
their APIs. APIs escape to copyright , meaning also
that no license may restrict their reproduction as
soon the aim is to make the various components
working together. By the way, regarding linking,
this invalidates also the theory of strong copyleft,
in my opinion.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">All
the best,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">Patrice-Emmanuel<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">Le sam.
29 juin 2019 à 15:08, Pamela Chestek <<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a>>
a écrit :<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204);border-style:none none none solid;border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">On
6/28/19 11:40 PM, Bruce Perens via
License-discuss wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-color:currentcolor currentcolor currentcolor rgb(204,204,204);border-style:none none none solid;border-width:medium medium medium 1pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><i><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">Until now, the
principle of copyleft has only been
applied to literal code, not APIs.
The <span class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614gmail-m4035744437781305658m720975723019406264gmail-m8866525935254244560gmail-il">license</span> submitter’s
proposal is for a copyleft effect that
would apply to new implementations of
the API even when the underlying has
been written from scratch. <a href="http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-April/004056.html" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/<span class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614gmail-m4035744437781305658m720975723019406264gmail-m8866525935254244560gmail-il">license</span>-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-April/004056.html</a>.
The <span class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614gmail-m4035744437781305658m720975723019406264gmail-m8866525935254244560gmail-il">license</span> also
makes this extension even if the legal
system would not extend copyright (and
therefore copyleft) so far. During
the <span class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614gmail-m4035744437781305658m720975723019406264gmail-m8866525935254244560gmail-il">license</span>-review
process some commentators objected to
this extension of the copyleft
principle this far. However, the <span class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614gmail-m4035744437781305658m720975723019406264gmail-m8866525935254244560gmail-il">license</span> review
committee does not believe that there
was sufficient discussion representing
all points of view on the <span class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614gmail-m4035744437781305658m720975723019406264gmail-m8866525935254244560gmail-il">license</span>-review
list and so does not reject the <span class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614gmail-m4035744437781305658m720975723019406264gmail-m8866525935254244560gmail-il">license</span> for
this reason. The <span class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614gmail-m4035744437781305658m720975723019406264gmail-m8866525935254244560gmail-il">license</span> submitter
should also be aware that the OSI was
a signatory on a brief submitted to
the U.S. Supreme Court advocating
against the copyrightability of APIs.
APIs are also known to be outside the
scope of copyright under European law.
We are consequently uncomfortable
endorsing an application of copyright
law to APIs in any form without
further discussion.</span></i><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">The
successful application of copyright to APIs
would be a disaster for Open Source
software, in that we would no longer be able
to create Open versions of existing APIs or
languages. Consider that the GNU C compiler
is the bootstrap tool of Open Source. Now,
consider what would have happened if
copyright protection had prevented
independent implementations of the C
language.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">So,
it's a bad idea for us to in any way accept
the application of API copyright today.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">If
we actually <i>get </i>API copyrights
enforced against us broadly, we would
obviously have to change our strategy. But
until then, we shouldn't go there.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">_______________________________________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">-- <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">Patrice-Emmanuel
Schmitz<br>
<a href="mailto:pe.schmitz@googlemail.com" target="_blank">pe.schmitz@googlemail.com</a><br>
tel. + 32 478 50 40 65<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">_______________________________________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><br clear="all">
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">-- <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:0.5in">Patrice-Emmanuel
Schmitz<br>
<a href="mailto:pe.schmitz@googlemail.com" target="_blank">pe.schmitz@googlemail.com</a><br>
tel. + 32 478 50 40 65<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
<a class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="gmail-m_-7483948562043125614moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><a href="mailto:henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi" target="_blank">henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi</a><br>+358-40-5697354 skype: henrik.ingo irc: hingo<br><a href="http://www.openlife.cc" target="_blank">www.openlife.cc</a><br><br>My LinkedIn profile: <a href="http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7" target="_blank">http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/henrik-ingo/3/232/8a7</a></div>