These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Technology Lab

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Interesting piece of news on the API front...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Radax Glenn
Church of the Black Hand
#1 - 2012-05-01 15:16:52 UTC
What will this mean for EVE in the future?
Interesting read: http://www.drdobbs.com/jvm/232901227
Skaal Fa
Nabaal Transport and Finances Corp
#2 - 2012-05-01 16:13:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Skaal Fa
Radax Glenn wrote:
What will this mean for EVE in the future?


Even should the worst happen, I don't think this affects the "EVE API" as we know it. After all, they're really just query functions, not interfaces in the programming sense. We're accessing a service, not writing an implementation of their API.

Now, any API mirrors/relays/caches could be in trouble, but I think CCP would be sensible enough to abandon the claim. Also, I think CCP would need a copyright notice on all their entry points, which they don't.

[EDIT] Blah, wrong character. CCP still has no good way to fix that?
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#3 - 2012-05-01 16:56:22 UTC
I agree with the previous poster, this isn't something that would affect Eve; though it would affect the programming community as a whole.
Trenker
#4 - 2012-05-01 17:16:32 UTC
mxzf wrote:
though it would affect the programming community as a whole.


I don't think this will happen, for two reasons:

1) Almost every website is somehow connected to others - via an API, every program uses and provides APIs, and most of them are similar. If Oracle manages to win, copyright holders cannot simply prohibit the useage of some kind of API, as it would seriously hurt an entire ecosystem, in effect hurting themselves.

2) An interface - like an API - is something generic. The mentioned copyrights may be be applied to a specific implementation of an API, but not for the interface it provides. If the implementation of an API by another program is different - and most likely it will be, except if you are stealing code - then the copyright is not touched.

Seriously: Which car manufacturer claims to own the copyright on the "rolling-a-wheel-on-a-surface-to-move-a-vehicle" API!
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#5 - 2012-05-01 17:27:03 UTC
Oh, I agree that it is completely ridiculous and that it's completely unreasonable to try to prevent people from coding in certain ways just because someone else said so. But that doesn't guarantee that the courts will see that. I agree that it would hurt everyone for APIs to be limited as Oracle is trying to claim, that's why I think it would be very bad for the programming community as a whole if Oracle did end up winning.
Packtu'sa
Nabaal Construction and Industrials Corp
Nabaal Syndicate
#6 - 2012-05-01 17:40:33 UTC
Trenker wrote:
Seriously: Which car manufacturer claims to own the copyright on the "rolling-a-wheel-on-a-surface-to-move-a-vehicle" API!


So, a patent?

Trenker wrote:
Almost every website is somehow connected to others - via an API, every program uses and provides APIs, and most of them are similar. If Oracle manages to win, copyright holders cannot simply prohibit the usage of some kind of API, as it would seriously hurt an entire ecosystem, in effect hurting themselves.


It's not usage they're prohibiting. It's re-implementation. The vast majority of applications do not re-implement proprietary APIs. Some very important projects would be hurt, like Android, but there's a legitimate argument here.

I hope the court rules against Oracle, but I don't think this case is in anyone's pocket yet.
Radax Glenn
Church of the Black Hand
#7 - 2012-05-01 18:08:21 UTC
I think Oracle is way off the mark on this. I believe the court will likely not move in that direction, but it still gives me a little pause. I use a lot of the Mobile EVE Apps via the Android Market, and would like developers to continue to produce great content. If these developers have to start worrying about a per license fee for every API they run through there app, it's going to make it too damn expensive.

I'm not a professional programmer, I know enough to get me into trouble with VBA, and C++ and a little Java, but even my infinitesimal/rudimentary knowledge of these subjects is light years ahead of the generation before me. Sure the lawyers in the case might have a pretty good understanding of whats at stake and the tech involved, but a jury? Or a judge that could be two generations ahead of me?

When's the last time anyone tried to teach their grandparents how to use email or Facebook? Let alone explain to them the relevance of what's at stake with API re-implementation.

Anyway...thanks for reading and responding. Good to have a dialogue about it.

Packtu'sa
Nabaal Construction and Industrials Corp
Nabaal Syndicate
#8 - 2012-05-01 18:32:08 UTC
Radax Glenn wrote:
I use a lot of the Mobile EVE Apps via the Android Market, and would like developers to continue to produce great content. If these developers have to start worrying about a per license fee for every API they run through there app, it's going to make it too damn expensive.


Again, it's only for re-implementation, not use of APIs. Android itself could get very expensive, but I don't see how using libraries (or services like the EVE "API") would be impacted.
Trenker
#9 - 2012-05-01 20:13:05 UTC
Packtu'sa wrote:

It's not usage they're prohibiting. It's re-implementation. The vast majority of applications do not re-implement proprietary APIs. Some very important projects would be hurt, like Android, but there's a legitimate argument here.


The problem is: if an API is copyrighted, then the mechanism is, which means other APIs which use a similar or the same mechanisms violate the law.

i.e.:

  • The API Proxy (mine or the one of Aximag) would be illegal.
  • Another example: The twitter stream API and the Facebook stream API. They are different, yet very similar, would one of them be illegal?
  • What about all those APIs who provide an XML with sensitive data based on authentication tokens in the URL (the EVE API being one of them). Are they illegal because they use the same mechanism, or the same technology?


Most important question: what defines a single API (in their opinion)?

That's why it is - at least in my opinion - to look at the actual implementation and not only at the interface to the outside world.
Miilla
Hulkageddon Orphanage
#10 - 2012-05-01 20:29:46 UTC
Will only affect the yanks.

They already have software patents which includes stuff like LinkedLists patented.

Let them have their copyright fun, meanwhile the rest of the civilised world gets on being creative :) Let them live in courtrooms. Stupid is as stupid does :)