4 ms·
I really only have two questions about this case: 1) The US legal code explicitly excludes "methods of operation" from being copyrightable. Does an API count
by TheFlyingFish 7y ago
I really only have two questions about this case:
1) The US legal code explicitly excludes "methods of operation" from being copyrightable. Does an API count as "methods of operation"? And if so, what ground does Oracle have left to stand on?
2) If this case goes Oracle's way, does this set the precedent that ANY re-implementations of an existing API are in violation of copyright? I don't know who now owns the original rights to Unix, but if they decide to come after Linux where does that leave us?
- beefhash 7y ago> 2) If this case goes Oracle's way, does this set the precedent that ANY re-implementations of an existing API are in violation of copyright? I don't know who now owns the original rights to Unix, but if they decide to come after Linux where does that leave us? We can't know until a decision is made, but this could likely start a precedent for any re-implementations. The curent copyright holders of UNIX are Micro Focus, who acquired it via buying Attachmade, who had bought Novell, who had bought UNIX System Laboratories from AT&T. Micro Focus mainly sells COBOL and is apparently hellbent on ignoring UNIX as much as possible (multiple people have tried to reach out to them about Ancient UNIX and possibly licensing some missing parts like PWB/UNIX and System III, but the best they've had is a salesperson being confused and trying to sell SUSE Linux). If they ever regain their institutional knowledge that they hold copyrights to UNIX and this decision happens, well, it's open season for Micro Focus v. Red Hat.
- kevin_b_er 7y agoCFAC has ended "methods of operation" where software is concerned. The phrase no longer applies.