| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAOLP8p7iNFoXeNn2-WJOsTkSiDbsn6BauxGebQ87Vaq-DsmuGw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 23:36:59 -0400
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] PHS API copyright?
I finished reading most of the court decision. I've read positive review
from multiple sources, claiming it was insightful and clear. While it is
clear, it is far from insightful. The judge erred in so many ways, it
would be hard to list here. Every page had more errors.
Picking a random page, page 30, here's what I see:
"First, we agree that merger cannot bar copyright protection for any lines
of declaring source code unless Sun/Oracle had only one way, or a limited
number of ways, to write them"
My standard of comparison in this case is printf. Clearly, there were many
ways to write printf, therefor, this court finds the printf API
copyrightable.
On page 31: the Android method and class names could have been different
from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have worked.
The court incorrectly believes that we coders have the freedom to choose
our APIs when writing all new code. Oh, I wish this were true! We live
with the baggage of the code that came before, in the name of
compatibility. We even have to implement the same bugs as the old code in
many cases.
Let's face it. This court is to ignorant of what it takes to write
software to issue an informed copyright opinion. The verdict this judge
gave is a disaster.
Bill
Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists