He's talking about distributing code that is not functional unless linked with a GPL library. Not about distributing code that replaces such GPL library.

Oracle is basically saying that you can not write a compatible implementation of Java.

> I built a libnoreadline.a that can be linked together with lisp.a, replacing libreadline.a .

> I will reorganize the distribution into 2 independent parts: > * clisp.lzh containing lisp.a and libnoreadline.a, > * readline.tar.Z containing libreadline.a and its source.

> The first one is enough to build a CLISP executable. It contains no GNU parts.

If readline's API were copyrighted and unreimplementable, this would still be infringement. However, this is not actually the argument rms used; rather, he said:

> The FSF position would be that this is still one program, which has only been disguised as two. The reason it is still one program is that the one part clearly shows the intention for incorporation of the other part.

Who knows whether that would hold up in court or not.

Incidentally, these days (well, since 1997 or so?) we have editline, which, rather than being a sort of low-effort dummy implementation like the proposed "libnoreadline", is a full-fledged BSD-licensed readline replacement which provides a readline compatibility API. One possible outcome of this case, in which Google loses on both copyrightability and fair use, would make it arguable (not certain - Java is much larger than readline) that editline is infringing the GPL, which would be amusing.

This stands to reason, as one of the first things RMS did in his efforts to advance Free Software was create a free compiler (gcc) and a free editor (emacs).

He might note that gcc is not meant to replace all other languages. It is just an example of a well-made and libre compiler.

Google's case is different. They didn't write Android so users can choose between a dummy libDoesNotRunAnything or wink, wink unlicensed Oracle JVM.

From reading that, you can be near certain that RMS would agree.

And the terminology has improved greatly since then; for instance, nowadays the requirement would be described as making CLISP "GPL-compatible", rather than putting it under the GPL.

Also, killing FOSS reimplementations of proprietary APIs is exactly why Microsoft filed a briefing in favor of Oracle the last time Oracle won at the CAFC. That and also the fact that Microsoft hates Google much more than Google hates Microsoft behind the scenes, which is why it keeps extorting Android OEMs and wants Oracle to win in this case.

In this interpretation, the legal system is a reasonably objective proxy to inform people how far they are across the line. This suggests that even unenforced laws can help establish an acceptable norm, so people have an external comparison.

I find that a sensible way to look at it is that laws that are used are bad laws. Because almost everyone follows sensible laws so they only need to be litigated in rare outlier cases. By contrast, bad laws end up in the courts continuously because they're susceptible to abuse by dishonest parties.

So the vast majority of laws are used negatively, because good laws don't have to be used.

It goes without saying that copying games is illegal. Well, bar a few caveats which seldom apply to people who run emulators.

> some emulators have reimplemented BIOSes

I'm sure some do but many don't - hence my point.

Obtaining ROMs for games you own may or may not be, depending on your jurisdiction; in any case, it seems entirely ethical to have ROMs for games you own.

Likewise for BIOSes.

This, of course, brings us into the thorny world of whether copyright even makes sense in the software business. Copying seems to be an essential part of using a computer (copying runtimes into memory, caching web pages to your computer, etc.) so it may be an outmoded way of thinking about protecting IP.

The music industry would love it if you had to pay for music multiple times, but you can nonetheless rip your own CDs. Or vinyl records with the right equipment.

You can, but it's not legal, at least not in the United States. It's never really been litigated, but a reading of law would seem to say it's not legal. There's no "personal use" or "personal backup" clause in the law. It's a copy, and copying is not OK outside of the "fair use" bounderies outlined in section 117 (there's also some provisions for libraries and archives, but those don't apply to individuals).

Legality is really tangential to the point, however. The question is that for any given work, whether that's a book, piece of music, game, etc, do you "own" that work seperate from the physical media you purchased it on. Can you obtain a ROM, a copy of the book or a copy of the record in question legally in perpetuity because you bought it in one form once?

That seems like a fairly clear precedent.

Also see Sony v. Connectix for a somewhat related case regarding emulation and BIOSes. In that case, Connectix obtained copies of Sony's BIOS as part of reverse-engineering it (though they didn't distribute BIOS images with their emulator), and that was ruled legal.

That seems like an even clearer precedent, specifically discussing emulation, as well as copying, for commercial purposes even.

Now, it is fairly clear that sites hosting ROMs for download are violating copyright law. Then again, so is the Internet Archive, and I'd bet the majority of people on HN agree with what archive.org does.

> Legality is really tangential to the point, however. The question is that for any given work, whether that's a book, piece of music, game, etc, do you "own" that work seperate from the physical media you purchased it on. Can you obtain a ROM, a copy of the book or a copy of the record in question legally in perpetuity because you bought it in one form once?

Personal opinion, not based on any particular country's copyright law or precedent (though there is some precedent): personal copying without redistribution should always be OK. It's distribution that copyright should cover.

(That's separate from my opinions on how copyright law ought to be changed.)

Down to the next point about obtaining a copy, I think there are two relevant points:

1. If you own it are you allowed to copy it?

To this I would personally argue yes. But I can see how copyright holders argue no. You purchase an item, not its contents. (When I think about the limits put on the aftermarket repair and upgrade market by hardware makers and the outrage that causes, I think there's a reverse logic that applies in this situation.)

2. Should you be able to obtain that ROM or copy because you purchased this item? (ethically, not legally)

This is thornier. Should I be able to download an ebook from a pirate site because I bought a copy of the physical book? What about an old nintendo game I bought many years ago? That to me is a more interesting ethical issue. I certainly did not buy a perpetual license for all forms of that work, but it's not like I can go pick up a copy of a game for my Android either. Of course, if I could pick up a commercial copy (Nintendo resells old games for its new platforms), would it still be OK?

But yes, I also have opinions about changing copyright law, or really reverting it to an older time. I do firmly believe copyright is a good tool to encourage the generation of art, knowledge and entertainment, but I believe that a perpetual monopoly on that content for a lifetime and for your children's lifetime (or companies) is counterproductive to that goal.

Until the TPP takes effect around 2019.

In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose – the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report explains, "[t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at 86 (emphasis added). The Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. S 1008, which "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings, " H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at 59. The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-shift", those files that already reside on a user's hard drive. Cf. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984) (holding that "time-shifting" of copyrighted television shows with VCR's constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). Such copying is paradigmatic non-commercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act. [1]

[0] 17 U.S. Code § 1008 Prohibition on certain infringement actions

[1] 180 F.3d 1072. 1078-1079. 51 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1115 (9th Cir. 1999)

So the law does specifically say that making digital copies of music for non-commercial use is ok and it has been reviewed by the judiciary (to some extent).

There is also 17 U.S. Code § 117 which allows backup copies or computer programs "that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful".

You can still get yourself in trouble related to the DMCA depending on what you are doing, but all of your assertions are false.

I still maintain that where both Universal v. Sony and RIAA v. Diamond are persuasive, the facts are not enough to bind a future court. Ripping CDs may be fair use, but there's not enough legal precedent to say for sure.

And p. 117 doesn't really apply here because the copy is not for archival purposes, it's for use in an emulator. That is not "archival".

As I said, I'm playing devil's advocate here, I don't necessarily disagree with your argument, but I do firmly feel there is a great deal of legal uncertainty in this area.