[kwlug-disc] This sounds scary? no more GPL?

[B.S.]

On 06/09/2016 01:18 PM, Andrew Kohlsmith (mailing lists account) wrote:
>> On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:04 PM, Bob Jonkman <bjonkman at sobac.com>
>> wrote: There are two different use cases for using an API: 1) I
>> write software that uses your services, so my software contains
>> calls to your software using your API; 2) I write software that
>> emulates your software, so my software contains implementations of
>> your API so that others can replace your software with my software.
>> I'm not sure which use case Oracle objected to.
>>
>> The second case is a little more subtle, but also contrary to
>> common sense. It's entirely possible Oracle objects to Sun having
>> made the Java source code freely available, but once that cat is
>> out of the bag you can't put it back in. So here they are trying to
>> say "Yes, you can implement a Java engine, but you can't copy the
>> API", effectively making that code non-free again. It is certainly
>> not what the original Sun developers intended by making the source
>> available.

There is a 3rd use case, which is what I thought was going on - what I
would call thunking. (Think windows.) Think LD_PRELOAD.

I write 'api' calls with identical headers to the underlying API/SDK. I
munge things in between, possibly returning directly, and possibly
calling the underlying API and munging the return. Essentially replacing
the pointer to function func, and internally calling the direct _func
functions instead.

I thought this was what was actually going on. Android having optimized
things for its platform that the Java SDK didn't do so well natively on
that platform. For some reason, memory management is coming to mind. I'd
guess path changes would also apply.

> I wonder if this second case (being able to emulate an API to a
> closed source library) falls under Fair Dealings or Fair Use laws.
> e.g. ProprietaryLib.so is no longer maintained/available on a
> platform so you write AlternativeLib.so to allow some software
> package to continue to function.

 From what I read at the time, I thought this was the real issue of the 
decision - a change in the realm of 'fair use'. So although infringing 
(at an agreed upon opportunity cost of $0), it is (now) fair use. And 
that change is what the article was warning about. (Fatuously, but 
that's not the point here.)

Did I misread?