<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
I prefer Oracle to win. Then, Google would be forced to dump Java
and find replacement.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/6/21 1:06 PM, Russell Reiter via
talk wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPik5MzZiJN+mMtKwSpAE8SUAzcswXrTXkV0ya2TMO3pdkaJBg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">
<div>
<div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">On Tue, Apr 6, 2021,
12:31 PM D. Hugh Redelmeier via talk, <<a
href="mailto:talk@gtalug.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">talk@gtalug.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Oracle
sued Google, claiming Android infringed Oracle's patents
on Java. <br>
Somehow. That failed.<br>
<br>
So they sued for copyright infringement based on the
copying of the API <br>
declarations.<br>
<br>
The computer community had been very scared that APIs
could be <br>
copyrighted, something nobody had expected.<br>
<br>
The US Supreme Court decided that this particular case
came under "fair <br>
use". and was no infringement. This was NOT a general
decision about <br>
APIs.<br>
<br>
This is very good news of Free Software. And consumers.<br>
<br>
<a
href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210405/09243546552/supreme-court-sides-with-google-decade-long-fight-over-api-copyright-googles-copying-java-api-is-fair-use.shtml"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20210405/09243546552/supreme-court-sides-with-google-decade-long-fight-over-api-copyright-googles-copying-java-api-is-fair-use.shtml</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I read that article with interest after I had
used a pharmacological/health sciences metaphore about
copyright in another thread. This description of how the
courts view a value added proposition, is closer to the
crucible of linux topicality, but the principal is the same. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Shame on Oracle for not sharing what they
conceptually borrowed elsewhere for their product. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">You may use other copy protected work under fair
use if it adds value to the proposition. I think this decision
makes that pretty clear. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">---<br>
Post to this mailing list <a
href="mailto:talk@gtalug.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer
noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">talk@gtalug.org</a><br>
Unsubscribe from this mailing list <a
href="https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">---
Post to this mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk@gtalug.org">talk@gtalug.org</a>
Unsubscribe from this mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk">https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>