|
Authored by: OmniGeek on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 02:17 PM EDT |
Then I cannot imagine how the "selection, structure and organization"
of the specification could possibly be held to constitute protectable expression
as a separate work. That selection, structure, and organization are purely
artifacts of the way the underlying Java source code is organized.
There's no separate originality there whatever; it's exactly like a telephone
directory, its content and layout are dictated by an automated abstraction
process from the parent work (the Java source). All that is left is the stuff
functionally required to achieve interoperability, which, IIRC, is excluded from
copyright protection.
---
My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on
espresso.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 02:21 AM EDT |
Hey, what does this Sun page from 2008 mean, from
Internet
Archive:
Java - Sun's implementations of the Java specifications are
all based on Free and Open Source code.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 06:51 AM EDT |
Unless all of the implementation source code files were written by the same
person, then the Java API Specification document is the aggregated creative
expression of many authors. It is in evidence that many parts of that creative
expression in Sun's document is copyright owned by third parties.
I have three questions,
1) Where is the single copyright document entitled Java SE API Specifications
in which the aggregated creative expression is fixated? (Don't even think of
pointing me at a ragbag of html files on a recent Oracle website!)
2) Where in that document is the acknowledgement of the individual copyrights
of the third parties?
3) Where is the evidence that Sun licensed those copyrights with the licence
condition that they can publish them freely in their own documentation, impose
overriding additional licence conditions in the way that they purport to do and
copy the SSO in those third party copyrights into their API implementations?
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|