Anthonys Lists <antli...@youngman.org.uk> writes: > On 02/04/2013 22:31, David Kastrup wrote: >> Anthonys Lists <antli...@youngman.org.uk> writes: >> >>> Indeed, this legal claim (that using functions creates a derivative >>> work) is exactly the claim that Oracle tried with Android and Java, >>> and they came a royal cropper with it. >> "exactly" in the meaning of "quite the opposite of". Oracle did not try >> to cover code intended to compile with their Java libraries, but rather >> tried to prohibit a compatible reimplementation from scratch of the Java >> code implementing the APIs. >> >> So Oracle was trying to prohibit reimplementing the code _behind_ the >> APIs, whereas we are talking about the implications of the APIs on the >> code _calling_ them. >> > Hmmm... I don't think that's the way they actually put it. That's what > they were trying to do, true. > > But as I understand it, the lawsuit as actually sued said "apis are > copyright"
That summary does not even make grammatical sense. > and you would have needed a licence to use the apis - to use Oracle's > Java. That wasn't what the lawsuit was about. It was not even what Oracle claimed the lawsuit to be about. The issue was the reimplementation of Java classes, not the _use_ of Java classes. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
