[Lazarus] Google vs Oracle case - does it affect LCL ?

[Adrian Veith via Lazarus]

Hi,

there is an article on phoronix
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Oracle-vs-Google-Wine-API,
which shows that the Google vs Oracle case is concerning Wine developers
because Wine mimics the Windows-API with the function names and
parameters. Under this light the LCL might also be affected because it
mimics the VCL to a large degree - and many fcl libraries mimic
corresponding Delphi libraries. What do you think ?

Adrian.

--

[Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus]

Post by Adrian Veith via Lazarus
Hi,
there is an article on phoronix
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Oracle-vs-Google-Wine-API,
which shows that the Google vs Oracle case is concerning Wine developers
because Wine mimics the Windows-API with the function names and
parameters. Under this light the LCL might also be affected because it
mimics the VCL to a large degree - and many fcl libraries mimic
corresponding Delphi libraries. What do you think ?

For starters, most of FPC based developers are not in the US.
So the rulings of a US court do not apply to them.

Many of them are based in Europe, where different laws apply.

So, strictly speaking, if it turns out the ruling applies to LCL/FCL,
it means that US citizens will not be allowed to use the LCL/FCL.

Michael.
--

[Gabriele Cappelletto via Lazarus]

--

[Graeme Geldenhuys via Lazarus]

Post by Adrian Veith via Lazarus
What do you think ?

It will never concern or worry use. Why...? If Embarcadero can't even
bother, or simply can't stop Code Typhon in shipping a leaked FMX
framework, why would Google, Oracle or Microsoft bother with something
as small as FPC or Lazarus. They just wont - it will be a colossal waste
of time for them with no financial reward.

Regards,
Graeme

[Mark Morgan Lloyd via Lazarus]

On 2018-04-15 09:42, Adrian Veith via Lazarus wrote:> What do you think ?
It will never concern or worry use. Why...? If Embarcadero can't evenbother, or simply can't stop Code Typhon in shipping a leaked FMXframework, why would Google, Oracle or Microsoft bother with somethingas small as FPC or Lazarus. They just wont - it will be a colossal wasteof time for them with no financial reward.

I'd suggest that that is not a safe assumption: "We didn't think anybody
would notice" has never been a valid defence, and copyright is governed
by international treaties.


Leaving aside the question of jurisdiction and differing tolerance of
reverse engineering etc. in different countries, I'd suggest that the
most relevant thing is that at one point the company that owned the
rights to Delphi made commercial use of the FPC compiler. They cannot
claim to be ignorant of the function and structure names in the FCL, and
the fact that they (presumably) did not challenge the FPC developers at
that point would probably make it more difficult to do so now.

[Graeme Geldenhuys via Lazarus]

Post by Mark Morgan Lloyd via Lazarus
and copyright is governed
by international treaties.

And like Michael said, the majority of FPC and Lazarus developers are
all based outside of the USA - and most in the EU. Very different laws
in the EU.

Post by Mark Morgan Lloyd via Lazarus
Leaving aside the question of jurisdiction and differing tolerance of
reverse engineering etc.

Nothing was reversed engineered. The API's are openly documented in help
files, wiki pages etc.

Post by Mark Morgan Lloyd via Lazarus
the company that owned the
rights to Delphi made commercial use of the FPC compiler.

And with that EMBT probably doesn't have a leg to stand on. The only
game EMBT can now play is purposely change behaviour or implement things
differently to FPC and Lazarusu - which EMBT is already doing. Maybe
live harder for the open source projects.


Regards,
Graeme

[Adrian Veith via Lazarus]

Post by Graeme Geldenhuys via Lazarus
why would Google, Oracle or Microsoft bother with something
as small as FPC or Lazarus. They just wont - it will be a colossal waste
of time for them with no financial reward.

It wouldn't be Google, Oracle or Microsoft, but Embarcadero/Idera. I
don't think they would tackle the FPC or Lazarus developers directly,
but if there are financial successful applications in the US written in
Lazarus/fpc it might be interesting for them.

Adrian.
--

[Graeme Geldenhuys via Lazarus]

Post by Adrian Veith via Lazarus
but if there are financial successful applications in the US written in
Lazarus/fpc it might be interesting for them.

Creating commercial software, you don't have to divulge what tools you
used to develop that software. At least the FPC and LCL licenses don't
require that.

Regards,
Graeme

[Dmitry Boyarintsev via Lazarus]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 4:42 AM, Adrian Veith via Lazarus <

Post by Adrian Veith via Lazarus
there is an article on phoronix
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Oracle-
vs-Google-Wine-API,
which shows that the Google vs Oracle case is concerning Wine developers
because Wine mimics the Windows-API with the function names and
parameters. Under this light the LCL might also be affected because it
mimics the VCL to a large degree - and many fcl libraries mimic
corresponding Delphi libraries. What do you think ?

Reading the wikipedia article (referenced from the article above):
"The Court found that as a matter of law, Google's use of Java could not
have fallen within fair use,..."
..."It was not transformative in the sense of a new platform either, since
other Java smartphones predated Android"

In case if Wine, this is actually the case. Because no Windows API existed
on Linux platforms, except for Wine.
It's also the case for FPC and LCL.

I guess the bigger complaint is about:
"It was not within any example of transformation, nor intended to permit
third party interoperability, since Google had made no substantial efforts
to use them for the purpose of third party interoperability.
(In fact it found that Google had tried to prevent interoperability with
other Java and had previously been refused a license by Sun for that
reason)"

Btw, the same wikipedia article references POSIX interface. That's actually
an example of copyrighted API.
In my opinion, having API copyrighted makes sense. It's similar
copyrighting hardware interfaces such as USB, COM and HDMI ports.
(there was quite a fight around those in the past)
A well written API helps dramatically, while poorly written API requires a
lot of work with every new version of API released (compare OpenGL vs
DirectX)

At the same time both POSIX and OpenGL were created as "API" (interface)
standards.
I'm not sure with WindowsAPI or Delphi were intended as as such. They are
more platform specific interfaces (rather than cross-platform)
Borland couldn't reuse VCL with Kylix, instead they came up with CLX
instead.
Where Lazarus with sweat-and-blood keeps up with LCL.

Naturally, interfaces between FPC/Lazarus and Delphi are already quite far
from one another.

thanks,
Dmitry

[Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus]

Post by Dmitry Boyarintsev via Lazarus
Btw, the same wikipedia article references POSIX interface. That's actually
an example of copyrighted API.
In my opinion, having API copyrighted makes sense.

Of course not. Copyright is theft. Ideas should always be free.

Michael.
--

[Dmitry Boyarintsev via Lazarus]

On Sunday, April 15, 2018, Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus <

Post by Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus
Of course not. Copyright is theft. Ideas should always be free.

API is an implementation of an idea, and it’s up to the author to define
license of use.

Thanks,
Dmitry

[Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus]

Post by Dmitry Boyarintsev via Lazarus
On Sunday, April 15, 2018, Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus <

Post by Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus
Of course not. Copyright is theft. Ideas should always be free.

API is an implementation of an idea, and it’s up to the author to define
license of use.

Take a routine that converts an integer to a string: Why would you
force someone to change what is an obvious name, simply because someone
else already used it ?

Ridiculous.

Michael.

[Dmitry Boyarintsev via Lazarus]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus <

Post by Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus
Take a routine that converts an integer to a string: Why would you
force someone to change what is an obvious name, simply because someone
else already used it ?

I don't think that API is reviewed on per routine basis. API is reviewed
as a whole.
Also, in 2010 the first trial in US (if jurisdiction matters) court
decision was that APIs cannot be copyrighted.

So later the case was changed from a copyright violation to unfair use.

That's actually contained in the court ruling as well:
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.#Appeals_Court_and_finding_of_non-fair-use
)
"Instead, the Court found that Google's purpose had been to enhance its
nascent Android platform's attractiveness to existing developers, who were
often familiar with Java, and to avoid the "drudgery" of rewriting the code
(which they could have done) needed to implement the 170 lines of API
detail which were indeed required."

In general, they're not trying to impose a copyright on each function
declaration owned by Oracle.
Instead, they're claiming that Google made an unfair use of Oracle's (Sun)
work.
The unfairness is driven by Google competing with the Oracle with its
Android system.

If Microsoft will try to come up with its own "windows emulator" for Linux,
then they might run into issues with Wine (but Wine would likely win,
because they were there first, providing binary compatibility)

thanks,
Dmitry

[R0b0t1 via Lazarus]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Dmitry Boyarintsev via Lazarus

Post by Dmitry Boyarintsev via Lazarus
On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus

Post by Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus
Take a routine that converts an integer to a string: Why would you
force someone to change what is an obvious name, simply because someone
else already used it ?

I don't think that API is reviewed on per routine basis. API is reviewed as
a whole.
Also, in 2010 the first trial in US (if jurisdiction matters) court decision
was that APIs cannot be copyrighted.

To further clarify in the case of Wine, reverse engineering for
interoperability and the results thereof can not violate any IP law.
So this could not possibly affect either Wine or the LCL.
--