[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /λ/ - 20125



File: 1478919130369.png (141.78 KB, 191x300, not_this_time.jpg)

No.20125

Christoph Hellwig's case against VMware dismissed

https://lwn.net/Articles/696764/

Oracle v. Google

https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google

Hopefully both cases will be appealed soon and there's no guarantee that these two cases will be enough rulings to be applicable in all the future cases but it just got me thinking :

If APIs are not copyrightable, or if it they are copyrightable but we acknowledge the "fair use" instances,

what prevents for profit organization from writing proprietary software that provides API/ABI compatibility with GNU/Linux like wine and ReactOS?

what's going to happen when hardware companies refuse to provide any more information to linux dev (not even bothering with NDA contract option) and only support said proprietary os?

this thread might belong to /tech or /lamb, but potential implication is more about expanding the concept of copyright as understood by juristic system so I'm posting it here.

  No.20132

>what prevents for profit organization from writing proprietary software that provides API/ABI compatibility with GNU/Linux like wine and ReactOS?

Nothing. It'a an even easier endeavor since Linux is fully open source. The question is why would anyone want to do that? Clearly nobody has a good enough reason to spend developer time doing this.

>what's going to happen when hardware companies refuse to provide any more information to linux dev (not even bothering with NDA contract option) and only support said proprietary os?


They're going to support a crappy alternative OS nobody cares about and people will flock to their competitors. Meanwhile Linux devs will just reverse-engineer their hardware and get it to work if it really is that important.