Jump to content

Op-ed: Oracle Attorney Says Google’s Court Victory Might Kill the GPL


vissha

Recommended Posts

Op-ed: Oracle Attorney Says Google’s Court Victory Might Kill the GPL

 

gpl-listing-ars.jpg

 

Developers shouldn't celebrate Google's win in this hard-fought copyright case.

 

Quote

Annette Hurst is an attorney at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe who represented Oracle in the recent Oracle v. Google trial. This op-ed represents her own views and is not intended to represent those of her client or Ars Technica.


The Oracle v. Google trial concluded yesterday when a jury returned a verdict in Google's favor. The litigation began in 2010, when Oracle sued Google, saying that the use of Java APIs in Android violated copyright law. After a 2012 trial, a judge held that APIs can't be copyrighted at all, but that ruling was overturned on appeal. In the trial this month, Google successfully argued that its use of Java APIs, about 11,500 lines of code in all, was protected by "fair use."

 

The developer community may be celebrating today what it perceives as a victory in Oracle v. Google. Google won a verdict that an unauthorized, commercial, competitive, harmful use of software in billions of products is fair use. No copyright expert would have ever predicted such a use would be considered fair. Before celebrating, developers should take a closer look. Not only will creators everywhere suffer from this decision if it remains intact, but the free software movement itself now faces substantial jeopardy.

 

While we don't know what ultimately swayed the jury, Google's narrative boiled down to this: because the Java APIs have been open, any use of them was justified and all licensing restrictions should be disregarded. In other words, if you offer your software on an open and free basis, any use is fair use.

 

If that narrative becomes the law of the land, you can kiss GPL (general public license) goodbye.

 

No business trying to commercialize software with any element of open software can afford to ignore this verdict. Dual licensing models are very common and have long depended upon a delicate balance between free use and commercial use. Royalties from licensed commercial exploitation fuel continued development and innovation of an open and free option. The balance depends upon adherence to the license restrictions in the open and free option. This jury's verdict suggests that such restrictions are now meaningless, since disregarding them is simply a matter of claiming "fair use."

 

Free stuff from Google does not mean free in the sense Richard Stallman ever intended it.

 

It is hard to see how GPL can survive such a result. In fact, it is hard to see how ownership of a copy of any software protected by copyright can survive this result. Software businesses now must accelerate their move to the cloud where everything can be controlled as a service rather than software. Consumers can expect to find decreasing options to own anything for themselves, decreasing options to control their data, decreasing options to protect their privacy.

 

Google is an advertising company. It does not depend upon traditional software licensing and is therefore free to disregard the protections that traditional software licensing provides. Nonetheless, Google exerts control over its APIs. Google prohibits copying of its APIs for competitive uses. In fact, Google has in the past settled with the FTC over the manner in which it has restricted its APIs.

 

Developers beware. You may think you got a win yesterday. But it's time to think about more than your desires to copy freely when you sit down at a keyboard. Think about the larger and longer term implications. You should have been on Oracle's side in this fight. Free stuff from Google does not mean free in the sense Richard Stallman ever intended it.

 

Source

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 5
  • Views 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

actually "free" stuff from google are not at all free! API keys are VERY expensive as they charge on a per call basis

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, VileTouch said:

actually "free" stuff from google are not at all free! API keys are VERY expensive as they charge on a per call basis

read the comments at  the source site that saves me from having to explain   it's just Oracle PR  not even any truth too it at all.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/op-ed-oracle-attorney-says-googles-court-victory-might-kill-the-gpl/?comments=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, steven36 said:

read the comments at  the source site that saves me from having to explain   it's just Oracle PR  not even any truth too it at all.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/op-ed-oracle-attorney-says-googles-court-victory-might-kill-the-gpl/?comments=1

true. but ever wondered why there are no 3rd party apps that use google translate,etc. as an engine? like there are so many for facebook,reddit,skype,etc?

it's because api usage is not free and prohibitive for mass usage. imagine if oracle would start charging developers per api call the way google does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, VileTouch said:

true. but ever wondered why there are no 3rd party apps that use google translate,etc. as an engine? like there are so many for facebook,reddit,skype,etc?

it's because api usage is not free and prohibitive for mass usage. imagine if oracle would start charging developers per api call the way google does.

I have a app that uses Google translate QTranslate and there's others and numbers of add-ons at Firefox that uses it .

 

gMaps for windows phone  https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/apps/gmaps/9wzdncrfj12k

Form windows store not made by Google for Google maps

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...