4 ms·
>Just because a giant company wants to be paid, and another giant company could afford to pay them, doesn't mean the bill was justified. That's not at all what
by jolux 10y ago
>Just because a giant company wants to be paid, and another giant company could afford to pay them, doesn't mean the bill was justified.
That's not at all what I was saying. All I was saying is that their usage is very clearly not fair use. That is all.
- ubernostrum 10y agoThe problem seems to be that we're stuck with a poor decision earlier down the line -- allowing the idea that an API, rather than an implementation, can be copyrighted -- and now other courts are trying to undo the damage by making sure nobody will ever really succeed in bringing an API-infringement case.
- Dylan16807 10y agoMy comment was a direct response to the idea of "shirking licensing". Yes, they wanted to avoid licensing. But that does not imply the license was ever legally necessary. > very clearly not fair use Very clearly? I don't think so.