Oracle attorney says Google’s court victory might kill the GPL
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Ahem. No, it's just your flawed legal idea that's falling. Code is still totally copyrightable, and not takeable under "fair use" (unless it's a very small amount), but using APIs is fair use.
API != implementation. Is that so hard to understand?
If using the API is fair use, how does this affect programs using libraries licensed under the GPL? Can a company claim fair use and not follow the GPL's restrictions on linking?
If you use the library, you're using - executing - the implementation, not just the interface. That's not covered by this case, and you can't ignore the GPL's restriction on linking.
The analogy of this case would be if you kept the same function signatures of the library, but re-implemented it. Can you do that without violating the GPL? This case says "yes".
Oracle is a threat to the GPL. They'll sure anyone.
quote:
>Fascinating. Strangely, the BusyBox seems to have been the very first U.S. lawsuit to enforce the GPL so his statement seems to suggest that there were cases before that – I can’t seem to find any.
https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...