You are right. I stand corrected. > They could implement a different library of function calls, but of course at that point none of the Java programs expecting Oracle's library would work.
I wonder if Google raised a "merger" defense: if there is only one way to do something, you can't protect it under copyright. Expression and function "merge" and function wins out. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Walt Farrell Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 7:33 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules On Thu, 3 May 2012 06:43:45 -0700, Charles Mills <[email protected]> wrote: >Right, Walt. Their claims fly in the face of precedent as I understand it. > >They are trying to claim than any implementation of Java is a >derivative work (see earlier posts in this thread) of the Java >specifications. I predict -- and hope -- they lose. No, I don't -think- that's what they're claiming. The Java language is rather straightforward. But knowing the -language- doesn't really help you write Java programs. Most programs have to rely on the library of function calls that Sun provided, and Oracle seems to be claiming that the library is separate from the language, and that the library calls (the API) are a "look and feel" expression that is copyrightable. So anyone is free to make a Java interpreter or compiler, but they can't implement the same library without duplicating Oracle's look-and-feel. They could implement a different library of function calls, but of course at that point none of the Java programs expecting Oracle's library would work. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
