Anthonys Lists <antli...@youngman.org.uk> writes: > On 02/04/2013 23:46, David Kastrup wrote: >> 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. > Yes. > > But the only thing that Oracle could sue over was the use of the > api's.
As the basis for reimplementation. In particular, the claim was based on the "structure, sequence, and organisation" of the API purportedly being subject to copyright, and "structure, sequence, and organisation" are utterly irrelevant for using an API. > Which would not only block re-implementation, but would also block > using any implementation. Which is the problem here ... It is very clear that you will not be fazed from your claims, so I am not interested in further replying in this thread. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
