|
Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 07:11 AM EDT |
This one stood out particularly:This whole farce is basically an
argument for:
- only ever using free software
- designing free software
to be as incompatible as possible with commercial products
Since Oracle
relies on FS for the entirety of its business (Linux, Apache, the HotSpot VM)...
they are sawing off the branch they sit on... well done!
Also, if APIs
are copyrightable, they are certainly implicitly part of the copyright on any
piece of code that has an API. I wonder how many third party copyrighted APIs
Oracle is using without a licence... To start with the GNU libc
API... I see that Oracle,once again, demonstrate that they are the
new owners of the SCO Footgun™®! A ruling of the sort they seem to
want will indeed foreclose their own use of very many third party APIs.
Actually, it is worse than that, it will shut down the entire US software
industry, even before patents do.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Apache API? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 29 2012 @ 04:32 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 28 2012 @ 08:59 AM EDT |
Which is what is in contention
But then, when you are discussing no more than a concept it's easy to confuse
terms.
That's why standards were invented.
If you agree terms, you can come to a mutual understanding of concepts. (like in
mathematics for example ;o)
Concepts of course cannot be copyrighted.
But the question invited is can you copyright an arrangement of concepts?
Or do you just have a bigger concept?
let's see what the jury thinks
I have some confidence that the Judge already knows the answer, but he would
like to see the thoughts of the jury.
If they agree with him, it is so decided.
I imagine it is much harder to overturn a jury than it is a judge.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|