This misrepresents the situation as the client SDK is not what is being copied. In fact, you can use the same Amazon client SDK to hit the Oracle backend api, which Oracle did copy from S3's backend.
The client SDK describes the entire interface, though.
Low level protocols like HTTP are arguably different for different roles, which is where I think this confusion comes from. For example, a socket server has to listen, while a socket client has to connect, and those are different processes.
But an application's interface is describing a set of, broadly speaking, function call signatures.
Specifically, it's describing the names of the function calls, the parameter types and return types. (And it describes those types as well.)
Those must be identical for the API to work. There's no difference between the "client API" and "server API" by the definition of API, clients and servers are different in role and implementation.
Sorry, but aren't you making my point for me? people are diving into 'hypocrite' arguments, comparing apples and lobster.
In what way do I mis-represent the situation? Oracle is suing Google for copying an API. People are saying "but Oracle copied the Amazon API" -I'm trying to say "yea.. nah: not relevant"
Did Oracle infringe Amazon's copyright here? Ars Technica contacted Oracle to ask them if they had a license to copy Amazon's S3 API. An Oracle spokeswoman said that the S3 API was licensed under an Apache 2.0 license. She pointed us to the Amazon SDK for Java, which does indeed come with an Apache 2.0 license.
I only brought up the Apache licence, because the article we are talking about, brings up the Apache licence.
The point of the case is to establish what the law is. In that context, pointing out that the litigant is a hypocrite who would themselves run afoul of their own proposed extension of copyright law is extremely relevant to a rational body considering the merits of the case.
Feels like supporting argument, not critical to the question. The Apache licence was applied to the S3 bindings: they may be in breach of them, but the licence is the declaration by the IPR holder of their intent, regarding use. Oracle did not apply the Apache licence to the Java API did they?
Sun is not Oracle. Oracle acquired Sun. 2006 is not now and the page you point to shows that Oracle do not always assert all things all the same all the time. I don't like API licence or copyright, so I am certainly not here to defend Oracle's case. The underlying point remains: if they claim they have an IPR right over the API, then their acceptance inward of use of Apache licensed API is not material to their IPR/Copyright claim.
Hypocracy does not negate legal rights (unfortunately)
What Sun did, does not alter what Oracle Claim. It might alter what binds them. I'm not a lawyer. If I was a lawyer, I would still be saying (sorry to be so repetitive) that the underlying story here, about the Apache API licence by Amazon, has virtually no material applicability to their case in law, even if it appears inconsistent.
The nearest I've seen anyone show me why its relevant, is the above comment about how Oracle seek an extension of their API rights, which would be in conflict with what the Apache licence inward for Amazon grants them. I absolutely concede that might play in their case, against what they seek. I just don't think its the giant "Ah-HA!" moment. Because. .. Hypocracy is not actually illegal per se.
I may demand you don't kill me, while (stupidly) denying I commit an offence killing you because they aren't the same. I may be held guilty of killing you but it wouldn't therefore make you innocent of trying to kill me, because the one does not negate the other.
Oracle may indeed wind up in breach of the Apache licence over the Amazon S3. Or.. they might cross licence it from Amazon in return for a RAND licence over their claims for the Java API, or hold-harmless or some payment in cash or kind.. Anything is possible. If Bezos hated Google enough, he might even come in on Oracles side.
