On 14-10-22 06:43 AM, lkcl . wrote:
... where the creator of the GPL (Dr Stallman) has pointed out that
the entire GNU project would not even exist if they had been unable to
copy - verbatim - the APIs of the UNIX operating system that they
wished to replace.
This is why the FSF will never reverse its position. In order to
protect and be consistent with what was done years ago, the FSF will
have to be on the side of allowing verbatim copying of an API.
I would suggest to contrast that with:
'As the former Register of Copyrights of the United States pointed out
in his brief amicus curiae,
“[h]ad Google reverse engineered the programming packages to figure out
the ideas and functionality of the original, and then created its own
structure and its own literal code, Oracle would have no remedy under
copyright whatsoever.”' p 48, appeals court decision
I don't believe that the appeals court would say that the GNU project
was reverse engineered according to the standards of the quoted Register
of Copyrights exactly because of the fragment about creating structure.
I think it's very unfortunate that, for consistency, the FSF is in a
position where it cannot reconsider and say "yeah, uh, maybe verbatim
copying of an API isn't reverse engineering."
I didn't realize there was an exact parallel between what Google did and
what was done years ago for the GNU project.
I replied to another person who started a similar thread in the hopes of
getting the FSF to reconsider its position because this case isn't
settled, and the FSF files amicus briefs. I now see that the FSF is
institutionally incapable of re-evaluating the pros/cons because of how
GNU came about.
-Thufir
