On 04/03/2013 12:01 AM, Anthonys Lists wrote: > But as I understand it, the lawsuit as actually sued said "apis are copyright" > and you would have needed a licence to use the apis - to use Oracle's Java.
That's exactly in line with what David said. Google were providing a clean-room re-implementation -- the only thing it had in common with Oracle's Java was the API. Oracle couldn't sue on the basis of code duplication, so they tried to stop Google distributing their implementation by claiming copyright violation on the basis of duplication of the API. And (rightly) lost. That's a different situation from the one we have been discussing here, which is code that _uses_ (not implements) functions whose only existing implementation is in a GPL-licensed program. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
