Google Calling: Inside Android, the gPhone SDK (O'ReillyNet) [LWN.net]

Google Calling: Inside Android, the gPhone SDK (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Nov 13, 2007 18:59 UTC (Tue) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285)
In reply to: Google Calling: Inside Android, the gPhone SDK (O'ReillyNet) by xav
Parent article: Google Calling: Inside Android, the gPhone SDK (O'ReillyNet)

> That's gratuitous talk - could you show me a case backing your saying ?

Just butting in here.  This sort of argument annoys me, as it puts pressure for evidence on
the other guy.  Requiring evidence for every statement can very quickly turn discussions into
PhD level papers.  

In my opinion, it'd be fair if the guy calling for evidence also provides evidence.

In other words, I think that if xav wants case law references from drag, xav should provide
references of his own.

(Log in to post comments)

Google Calling: Inside Android, the gPhone SDK (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Nov 14, 2007 12:00 UTC (Wed) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386) [Link]

Yes, quite annoying, especially because I'm not a lawyer, so don't know heck about cases. ;-)
(BTW, xav wanted references from me, not drag.)

I'm just a programmer who once tried to figure out what rights/restrictions there really were.
So I read some copyright laws, especially the Bern convention and WIPO stuff. It's unclear and
muddy, as lawyer talk tends to be. Suffice to say, you've quite a weak case when none of your
work is actually copied, but only extended or interacted with.

It gets easier if your work gets distributed with their work, because then you can use the GPL
terms (e.g. that combined works should all be distributed under the GPL). But if they only
release their software, and not your GPLed code, it's a though nut to crack (hi Nvidia).

But that depending on something and interacting with it are themselves not enough reason to
involve copyright law is obvious, and just common sense. Else programs written specifically
for, say, MSWindows should follow its license instead of their own.

All this said, I wouldn't dare to bet either way. Distributing closed modules is quite risky,
but at the other side, don't expect to have rights that you don't have.

If you do want to nitpick, here's how the Bern convention defines "derivative works":

>(3) Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations 
> of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works 
> without prejudice to the copyright in the original work.

The full text can be found at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html.
For people going to read that, keep in mind that according to WIPO:

> Computer programs are protected as literary works within
> the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention.

In short, if they don't change your work, it's not a derivative work. The time to lower
expectations is about now.

However, the real fogginess comes from the uncertainty what they mean exactly with "work" and
"computer programs". For instance, is a module a work, or just a small part of the greater
work that is the kernel? Similar for libraries.