4 ms·

there is no bright line between the language and the API This is actually a deep observation about the relationship between languages and libraries: the line b

by gruseom 14y ago

there is no bright line between the language and the API This is actually a deep observation about the relationship between languages and libraries: the line between them is fluid and to some extent just a convention. How astonishing that the judge of a lawsuit would show this level of technical understanding. Let's hope he has succeeded in appeal-proofing the ruling.

marshray 14y ago
We could even call it "introspection".
Natsu 14y ago
> How astonishing that the judge of a lawsuit would show this level of technical understanding. It's been reported that he's done programming before. I had very high hopes based on that and the extensive research he did in preparing for this ruling. He asked for several rounds of briefings and spent a considerable amount of time reaching this decision. So in a sense it's not that astonishing: he worked really hard to arrive at the correct answer. I'm just glad they got such a capable judge.
- gruseom 14y ago
  It's been reported that he's done programming before. Of course; that's the astonishing part. This was more than a capable judge - this was a capable judge with deep intuition for the domain. You don't get that by cramming from scratch. For once, we software people got a lucky break in the courts. If only this guy could be set on a patent troll case.
einhverfr 14y ago
Think about this for a second. What I heard the judge saying is basically this (and something judges have repeatedly said): Copyright is not a barrier to competition with functionally equivalent products, nor is it a barrier to interoperability of functional software. WINE is not a derivative work of Windows, for example.... Instead copyright (at least in the US) only protects creative expression to the extent it can be separated from function. This means it protects source code in kind of funny ways and with strange boundaries which haven't been as fleshed out as much as one might think. This is important. It places a lot of the more extremist rhetoric about what the GPL prohibits in doubt too, since by this logic steps that are minimally necessary to interop with a piece of software can never, by themselves, rise to the level of copyright infringement.

by gruseom 14y ago

marshray 14y ago

We could even call it "introspection".

Natsu 14y ago

> How astonishing that the judge of a lawsuit would show this level of technical understanding. It's been reported that he's done programming before. I had very high hopes based on that and the extensive research he did in preparing for this ruling. He asked for several rounds of briefings and spent a considerable amount of time reaching this decision. So in a sense it's not that astonishing: he worked really hard to arrive at the correct answer. I'm just glad they got such a capable judge.

gruseom 14y ago
It's been reported that he's done programming before. Of course; that's the astonishing part. This was more than a capable judge - this was a capable judge with deep intuition for the domain. You don't get that by cramming from scratch. For once, we software people got a lucky break in the courts. If only this guy could be set on a patent troll case.

einhverfr 14y ago

Think about this for a second. What I heard the judge saying is basically this (and something judges have repeatedly said): Copyright is not a barrier to competition with functionally equivalent products, nor is it a barrier to interoperability of functional software. WINE is not a derivative work of Windows, for example.... Instead copyright (at least in the US) only protects creative expression to the extent it can be separated from function. This means it protects source code in kind of funny ways and with strange boundaries which haven't been as fleshed out as much as one might think. This is important. It places a lot of the more extremist rhetoric about what the GPL prohibits in doubt too, since by this logic steps that are minimally necessary to interop with a piece of software can never, by themselves, rise to the level of copyright infringement.