Whether I like their position or not is irrelevant, whether I like Oracle is irrelevant, even whether it's what the law says is irrelevant: Oracle's position and their actions are entirely consistent.
They're copying the S3 API, and they did so under the license granted in the S3 client software.
If you publish either your client or server software, or some specification of your API and you do so with some kind of license, you are licensing your API.
Amazon's publishing of their client software under Apache means they have licensed their API to everyone who downloaded it, including Oracle. The license is irrevocable.
Google copied Java's API without getting license to do so. Java was not published by Oracle or Sun with such a license, nor did Google obtain such license to use their API by contacting Oracle for one.
The I in API means interface. Ars is getting confused by the API and the implementation of it here:
> However, the Amazon SDK is code that uses the S3 API, not code that implements it—the difference between a customer who orders hash browns and the Waffle House cook who interprets the orders. Code that uses an API will be organized completely differently from code that implements one; it may not even contain the whole API. And Oracle has for years argued that using an API is unrelated to reimplementation and not an infringement of copyright (or else every app developer using Java would infringe).
The client library isn't the code using the API, it contains the the API. Oracle argues in the link:
> This case is about Google’scopying of Oracle’s work. App programmers are unaffected. They remain free to write any program they want availing themselves of the Java APIs, for free. The decision only requires platform developers — usually large corporations with tremendous resources, like Google—to take a license if they want to copy Oracle’s work and incorporate it into a substitute commercial product.
Oracle's point here is that an application using a small portion of the API is acceptable copying. AWS published and licensed the entire client software, containing the entire API for S3.
> They're copying the S3 API, and they did so under the license granted in the S3 client software.
This is plainly false. To do so under the license they would have had to comply with the terms of the license, which include attribution. They did not do so.
You're referring to clause 4 in the license[1] which states:
4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You
meet the following conditions:
Oracle's server software is not redistributing the API.
Not to mention, they reproduced it on the server even if they didn't distribute it. Copyright protects making copies just as more (more really) as distributing them.
> Google copied Java's API without getting license to do so. Java was not published by Oracle or Sun with such a license, nor did Google obtain such license to use their API by contacting Oracle for one.
That lawsuit has been dragging on for even longer, it wasn't open source licensed at the time. (Technically it was, but it was one of those corporate "community" licenses that has loads of strings attached.)
Google adopted Apache Harmony for Android - as you might guess, Harmony also had an Apache license. You're right, the law suit has dragged longer, but Apache Harmony's tussle with the official JDK predates Oracle's purchase of Sun. Oracle inherited the fight and broadened it after Android was already a success.
The whole Harmony TCK situation was a clusterfuck, because Sun was ostensibly for Free Software/ Open-Source, but a certified, Apache-licensed Java implementation would have killed the official JDK. Harmony was donated to the ASF by IBM - Sun's erstwhile rival. As an outsider, that era of Sun vs. IBM proxy wars was...interesting to follow. I had a chuckle when I learned that the "Eclipse" IDE was named to throw shade at Sun, and it was from a salty Sun CEO/employee.
OpenJDK predates this lawsuit. OpenJDK was first released May 8 2007, this lawsuit was filed August 13 2010, Google first released the alledgedly infringing API on November 5 2007. All dates from wikipedia, articles containing them linked below.
It doesn't matter though, Google didn't comply with OpenJDK's GPL license (since they, like everyone in the software and legal world, did not think APIs were copyrightable). They are not even bothering to argue that they had a license.
Incidentally this is similar to how Oracle did not comply with that SDKs Apache 2 license... oddly they are trying to argue that they had a license despite that.
I didn't check, but it is possible that the client contains a complete copy of the back-end API. That would be pretty common with auto generated clients.
They're copying the S3 API, and they did so under the license granted in the S3 client software.
If you publish either your client or server software, or some specification of your API and you do so with some kind of license, you are licensing your API.
Amazon's publishing of their client software under Apache means they have licensed their API to everyone who downloaded it, including Oracle. The license is irrevocable.
Google copied Java's API without getting license to do so. Java was not published by Oracle or Sun with such a license, nor did Google obtain such license to use their API by contacting Oracle for one.
The I in API means interface. Ars is getting confused by the API and the implementation of it here:
> However, the Amazon SDK is code that uses the S3 API, not code that implements it—the difference between a customer who orders hash browns and the Waffle House cook who interprets the orders. Code that uses an API will be organized completely differently from code that implements one; it may not even contain the whole API. And Oracle has for years argued that using an API is unrelated to reimplementation and not an infringement of copyright (or else every app developer using Java would infringe).
The client library isn't the code using the API, it contains the the API. Oracle argues in the link:
> This case is about Google’scopying of Oracle’s work. App programmers are unaffected. They remain free to write any program they want availing themselves of the Java APIs, for free. The decision only requires platform developers — usually large corporations with tremendous resources, like Google—to take a license if they want to copy Oracle’s work and incorporate it into a substitute commercial product.
Oracle's point here is that an application using a small portion of the API is acceptable copying. AWS published and licensed the entire client software, containing the entire API for S3.