3 ms·
It’s an illegal derivative. Sun never granted a license. And of course the interface declaring code will be the same, otherwise the types would be incompatible
by jolux 6y ago
It’s an illegal derivative. Sun never granted a license. And of course the interface declaring code will be the same, otherwise the types would be incompatible and the documentation would be confusing: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/oracle-asks-court-to-clear-up-potential.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/oracle-asks-court-to-clea...
- wbl 6y agoHistorically functionally required aspects of a work have not been considered subject to copyright. Oracle's position is contrary to a long history of reimplementation of APIs.
- jolux 6y agoIt’s not functionally required because there are multiple (infinite, even) ways of implementing the functionality of most APIs, and the specific choice of function names and types and such chosen is itself a creative process. This was the ruling the appeals court came to.