Re: [License-discuss] linking exception in OpenJDK
Whoops, I listened again, and Bradley does later mention that Google could use the classpath exception, at the very end. ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] linking exception in OpenJDK
Bradley said that all android applications would now have to be GPL were Google to put Android under the GPL in the last few minutes of this podcast: 0x44: Oracle v. Google Federal Appeals Court Decision 05/13/2014 07:33 AM http://faif.us/feeds/cast-mp3/ When I read the wikipedia articles about OpenJDK and IcedTea, they don't mention this notion. A GPL linking exception modifies the GNU General Public License (GPL) in a way that enables software projects which provide library code to be "linked to" the programs that use them, without applying the full terms of the GPL to the using program. Linking is the technical process of connecting code in a library to the using code, to produce a single executable file. It is performed either at compile time or run-time in order to produce functional machine-readable code. There is a public perception, unsupported by any legal precedent or citation, that without applying the linking exception, code linked with GPL code may only be done[clarification needed] using a GPL-compatible license.[1] The license of the GNU Classpath project explicitly includes a statement to that effect. -Wikipedia Wikipedia says that On 13 November 2006, the HotSpot JVM and the JDK were licensed[12] under the GPL version 2. This is the code that became part of Java 7 (codename Dolphin[13]). I believe that IcedTea ultimately uses the HotSpot JVM, which comes from OpenJDK. In any event, they all have this linking exception in their license. Two questions: 1.) There seems no technical problem in running proprietary binaries on IcedTea and HotSpot in Ubuntu, which is what I use. Is there a legal prohibition or problem in doing so? I think not, because of the linking exception. 2.) Were, or had, Google forked OpenJDK and IcedTea, and kept the GPL, would Bradley be correct in stating that all Android apps would then have to be licensed under the GPL? I think not, there's a linking exception in the license... thanks, Thufir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 2015-03-08 01:33 PM, John Cowan wrote: Frankly, I have zero sympathy for Baystate's behavior. Bowers offered to license his technology on commercial terms, and they told him they thought they could do it themselves. They then licensed a copy of his work, accepting in the process the license's prohibition on reverse engineering, which they then proceeded to reverse engineer. When Bowers sued, they tried to claim that this part of the contract didn't apply to them. Legally, they could have been right; ethically, their position is bargain-basement. Hard cases, as the saying is, make bad law, and now we're stuck with it. In terms of right/wrong, reverse engineering shrink-wrapped software, or firmware for something you buy off the shelf, *seems*, to me, distinct from what's described above, approaching someone, not negotiating, etc. I suppose it comes down to whether or not the binary has been legally obtained. The problem is that when you get into EULA, then the precedent this sets allows a prohibition against reverse engineering most any proprietary software -- all that's needed is clause! That surely wasn't the intention of the legislature in the US when they wrote laws about this. Does the same logic apply to widgets? If so, that would, potentially, kill after-market car parts, which, if I'm not mistaken, are reverse engineered from the original. -Thufir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 2015-03-07 08:03 AM, John Cowan wrote: thufir scripsit: Please consider carefully your usage of requires versus allows. I think the language barrier isn't helping, but I see now where you're coming from, or at least what your concern is. Again, what is the mechanism by which *properietary* software *prevents* reverse engineering? The terms of the license, to be sure. Many proprietary licenses require you to give up the right to reverse engineer the software in order to obtain the right to use the software at all. The statement "Reverse engineering is legal" is not equivalent to "A license requirement not to reverse engineer is void", any more than the freedom of speech means that non-disclosure agreements are void. We can contract out of our rights to do all sorts of things, and do so daily. Well, I stand corrected. The book of knowledge (wikipedia) says: Reverse engineering of computer software <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_software> in the US often falls under both contract law <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_law> as a breach of contract <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_contract> as well as any other relevant laws. This is because most EULA <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA>'s (end user license agreement) specifically prohibit it, and U.S. courts have ruled that if such terms are present, they override the copyright law which expressly permits it (see /Bowers v. Baystate Technologies <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Baystate_Technologies>/^[29] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#cite_note-29> ^[30] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#cite_note-30> ). It was my understanding that contract law couldn't prohibit this. Ok, well now I understand the concern :) I don't think it's necessary to write a PDF about it, but, still, interesting. IMHO this is bad policy, a bad law, but there you are. Did this change at one point? I thought that reverse engineering was found to be legal, at least in the US? And this Bowers v Baystate set a precedent where it could be prohibited!? Not good. I'd hoped, and believed, that reverse engineering would always be legal, provided you jump through the requisite hoops. -Thufir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 2015-03-04 07:16 AM, Reincke, Karsten wrote: Now, I am indeed sure that all important open source licenses including the LGPL-v2 allow reverse engineering only in case of distributing statically linked programs. Moreover: I am definitely sure, that none of these open source licenses requires to allow reverse engineering in case of distributing dynamically linkable programs and that particularly even the LGPL-v2 does not require reverse engineering in case of distributing dynamically linkable programs. I don't understand where you're coming from. For the sake of argument, let's say that the above holds, and LGPL v2 allows reverse engineering. Cui bono? Who benefits? "...companies are not able to protect these ‘private’ programs against revealing the embedded business relevant secrets..." So, if the company doesn't link to LGPL'ed software, then they're protected from having their binary reverse engineered? I suppose the competitors of the original company would benefit from such a scenario, provided they wanted to reverse engineer the first companies software. For the sake of argument, this is being accepted as fact. How does *not* linking against LGPL'ed libraries *protect* the company from having their product reverse engineered? Surely some software, sometimes, gets reverse engineered -- legally. By what mechanism would *avoiding* LGPL'ed libraries prevent reverse engineering? Please consider carefully your usage of requires versus allows. I think the language barrier isn't helping, but I see now where you're coming from, or at least what your concern is. Again, what is the mechanism by which *properietary* software *prevents* reverse engineering? -Thufir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 2015-03-06 07:14 PM, thufir wrote: i assume also, thufir, that you have read, understood, and agree that if 77 highly intelligent and prominent computer scientists - many of them having NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GPL - go to the extraordinary lengths of submitting an amicus brief against the copyrighting of APIs, If you'd like to delve into the specifics of that amicus brief, I'd be glad to, and would point you to alternate briefs disagreeing fundamentally on, in particular, the implications of a decision in favor of Oracle, in respect on the copyrightability of API's. While it's seen as doom and gloom, I'd say "not so," and, if you like, will quote someone else on that. But it's moot, the FSF has already filed its briefs. It's not a poll; or, rather, it's only a poll of the SCOTUS. That being said, of course I take your point that, I'm sure, quite a few prominent computer scientists disagree. They can still be wrong, can't they? -Thufir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 2015-03-06 05:30 PM, lkcl . wrote: > >So, that's the point. You might write what you like about the GPL and >reverse engineering, but the foundation behind the GPL has opened the door >on this. no it has not. from previous experience, you have a habit of being unable to discern between correlation and causation, and have shown a tendency to not be able to follow logical chains of reasoning. While I appreciate that you continue the insults, that wasn't my full point above, as you should know, since we exchanged x number of e-mails on the subject. Allow me to elaborate: Generally, reverse engineering is expensive in dollars and time. Should Google win this battle, the result will be to weaken the GPL. Had Google been forced to resort to reverse engineering then Dalvik would've either been under the GPL or under some license from Oracle. I would've rather seen Dalvik GPL'ed. The upshot being that, for any sufficiently large company, the GPL is just a bump in the road and not a real impediment. In my opinion the FSF is only slitting its own throat by siding with Google on this topic. However, the die is cast: the FSF submitted it's amicus brief, so any further discussion is moot; but if you like, sure. (I would point out that if you've inferred that I'm in favor of copyrights on software, or something along those lines, you'd be mistaken. Or copyrights on GUI interfaces, or copyrights on...or patents on rounded corners...or maybe patents at all. The point is that, in an imperfect world, a stronger GPL is better than a weaker GPL. It's strictly a question of lesser evils. Anyhow.) -Thufir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 2015-03-06 05:30 PM, lkcl . wrote: i assume also, thufir, that you have read, understood, and agree that if 77 highly intelligent and prominent computer scientists - many of them having NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GPL - go to the extraordinary lengths of submitting an amicus brief against the copyrighting of APIs, that the issue of why copyrighting of APIs is extremely bad for the entire software industry and is a GENERAL PROBLEM NOT SPECIFIC TO THE GPL. No, I do not agree with your assertion on the value of polling. Polls, even amongst distinguished scientists, have nothing to do with what's right, wrong, moral, legal, or even a good idea. Well, I'll have to backtrack and say that a poll of the Supreme Court would show what's legal ;) There are other amicus briefs; I'm more than willing to delve into details if you like. I only cc'ed you because I quoted you, so figured you should at least be aware of that, and, you (I think) cc'ed on another discussion from someone asking for archives on another list (very strange question). -Thufir -Thufir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
On 2015-03-06 03:30 PM, thufir wrote: "For example, my capable colleague Helene Tamer constantly insisted, that Deutsche Telekom AG could not give up her restrictions to use LGPL libraries until I had offered a reliable proof that the LGPL does not require reverse engineering." Admittedly, I have no idea how to parse that sentence and lost interest at that point. First off, it doesn't matter what LGPL has to say about, because, at least in the U.S.A., reverse engineering is legal: 'Sec. 103(f) of the DMCA <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act> (17 U.S.C. § 1201 (f) <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_1201000-.html>) says that a person who is in legal possession of a program, is permitted to reverse-engineer and circumvent its protection if this is necessary in order to achieve "interoperability"' -wikipedia So, even if the LGPL prevents, or allows, reverse engineering, it doesn't matter, because reverse engineering is legal. No license can make reverse engineering illegal. So why this person cares what the license says is confusing. It doesn't matter what the license says about reverse engineering (not that I think it says anything on the topic). Secondly, the sentence itself makes no sense, at least to me. How can the LGPL "require" reverse engineering? Meaning that anyone using the library is then required to reverse engineer it? Or cannot? The sentence makes no sense itself to me. "This license requires that anyone using the software reverse engineer it." Nope, makes no sense; although I suppose you could require that anyone using the library stand on their head(?). The negation of that sentence, that reverse engineering of the license is prohibited, at least makes sense, but just doesn't matter -- because reverse engineering software is legal. So the person making the statement is either raising non-issues or is unaware of the legality of reverse engineering (to be charitable). Maybe they mean "anyone forking this library is required to first reverse engineer this library" is just absurd, but, maybe that's what the concern is...? What is their actual concern? -Thufir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] Reverse Engineering and Open Source Licenses
I don't get it, the pdf is at odds with Dr. Stallman and the FSF, if not in specifics, at least in results and effects. The FSF, to the extent I was able to get an official position from it, is all in favor of taking GPL'ed API's, copying the declaring code, re-writing the implementation, and slapping any old licence on the result. (Might be the ASL, or might not.) To emphasize: they don't just say it's ok, but actually encourage this. I read a bit of the pdf: "For example, my capable colleague Helene Tamer constantly insisted, that Deutsche Telekom AG could not give up her restrictions to use LGPL libraries until I had offered a reliable proof that the LGPL does not require reverse engineering." The FSF itself, in form of a quote from Dr. Stallman, endorses this: "We oppose interface copyright and have always opposed it. I founded an organization in 1990, the League for Programming Freedom, to fight against user interface copyright, but we oppose API copyright just the same." -Dr. Stallman http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.law.gpl.violations.legal/4370 So, that's the point. You might write what you like about the GPL and reverse engineering, but the foundation behind the GPL has opened the door on this. If necessary, I'm sure they'll put something about this in GPL v4. The point is that there's no need to reverse engineer, there's a much simpler approach, which is less expensive: Java is just one example of which has been copied without the need for reverse engineering at all. Reverse engineering GPL'ed software is beside the point. -Thufir ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
