Re: Illustrating JVM bindings
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 02:18:48PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> If the public benefit of interoperability outweighs the harm done to a
> copyright holder by permitting competitive use of the interface they
> created, how can it not outweigh the harm to him of permitting
> cooperative use?
Why assume that interoperability is the only benefit from release under
copyleft?
For example, there's issues like "more eyes on the code", "easier to
make derived works", and "enabling literacy".
And then there's the whole area of increasing the market for some related
product (for example: the hardware which runs the free code, or the
training services to help people use the free code more effectively, or
the consulting services to help businesses use the free code to improve
their processes, or ...).
For that matter, what makes you think that competitive use of the
interface is being disallowed? Near as I can tell, the only thing being
disallowed is use of the implementation and that's only being disallowed
in circumstances where the competing use won't comply with the copyright
on that implementation.
> You can argue that there's a completely different kind of public benefit
> that would result from giving free software a special status, but you're
> going to find limited legal precedent for that view.
Why bring in "a special status" as an issue?
Free software exists under current copyright law.
> In any case, the argument from free speech principles
> doesn't reduce the applicability of these precedents with regard to
> the copyright holder's economic interests.
Sure, just keep in mind that free software copyright holders also
have valid economic interests.
> > I strongly disagree. No one is arguing that you should not be able to
> > develop a proprietary program with equivalent functionality to a GPLed
> > program. The issue concerns the ability to build upon the actual GPLed
> > program in order to provide that functionality.
>
> So Sony should have attacked Connectix, not for emulating the
> PlayStation's interface in order to compete with it, but for building
> on customers' access to Sony-authored games to make their emulator
> useful?
The PlayStation is GPLed? Connectix is GPLed? Connectix used Sony's
copyrighted code (what was on the other side of the interface)?
Unless the answers to one of these questions is yes, you're talking
about irrelevancies.
> Or perhaps Sega should have fought Accolade, not for
> copyright infringement in the course of reverse engineering to create
> games for the Sega console, but for interfering with Sega's ability to
> engage in social engineering within the Sega-game-author community?
Irrelevant, again.
> Fortunately for us all, engineering reality tilts the playing field in
> favor of componentization; where there are interchangeable components,
> there are opportunities to find new uses for those components, some of
> which may compete with their originators' interests; and courts
> properly frown on the abuse of the copyright monopoly to block this
> competition. There's a legal device designed to control the terms,
> not merely of copying, but of use; it's called a patent, and (in
> theory) requires a much greater showing of originality.
You present a convincing case that contributory infringement is likely
to be limited in scope. But that's not the same thing as distributing
copies of the code behind the interface.
> <rant>
...
> </rant>
> I am, in fact, opposed to the idea that unlimited reach for copyleft
> is desirable. I don't really care whether the software inside my
> microwave oven is Free. I do want my government and my cellphone to
> run on Free Software, and neither will happen in my lifetime if there
> isn't a commercially viable transition strategy.
Don't expect the license to be changed to make it easier for past problems
to resurface.
> Last I checked, some people were arguing against the legitimacy of
> running Eclipse on Kaffe because this alternate implementation of the
> JVM interface happens to expose the inconsistency of the "linking
> creates a derivative work" stance. What, this would be a smaller
> problem if the first JVM implementation were GPL'd?
As it happens, that's not the case, and probably would never have been
the case. On the other hand, it would be plausible to have released
the first JVM under LGPL.
> > Use of words like "abuse" and "tricksy" to describe copyleft sound about
> > as convincing as those who attempt to label the GPL "viral".
>
> Courts and respectable commentators do use phrases like "abuse (or
> misuse) of copyright monopoly" to describe the conduct of plaintiffs
> who knowingly push the limits of copyright protection for
> anti-competitive purposes. Hint: Google for "abuse copyright
> monopoly Lexmark".
This is not at all the same thing as the GPL. In Lexmark, the
"copyrighted" material in question served the role of a key in a lock,
and was not a work of art or science in any other respect.
> Agreed. But as I have repeated ad nauseam elsewhere, I am not arguing
> that the body of a library is uncopyrightable;
You've presented arguments which basically said the same thing (in the
context of the GPL). But you're correct that you did not use those
exact words.
> > As for the second half, license incompatibility is obnoxious, and we'd
> > be better off if all Free Software was GPL-compatible, but it isn't, so
> > we deal with it. "GPL-compatible" is not the definition of Free, for
> > ourselves or for the FSF, nor should it be.
>
> License incompatibility is more than obnoxious. It is a major
> limitation on "Free-as-in-speech". It is not something to be
> complacent about. Most other Free Software licenses are notable for
> being "not-the-GPL", and the biggest reason for this is concern for
> the continued usability of a component in exactly the
> linked-from-proprietary-application scenario we are talking about.
I place the blame for this on the structure and character of copyright
law. See also: LGPL.
> This is freedom?
Yes.
--
Raul
Reply to: