www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de>
Subject Re: Regarding Java and the LGPL (fwd)
Date Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:29:15 GMT
I try to recap what I understood from glancing over those 40 pages.


> Oracle is likely to appeal the ruling, so what if the next ruling says 
> something different ? (just curious)

That might happen. But the ruling has a very detailed (both technically and legally) argumentation
chain. And this chain is more of the kind of the ones from a tank and not from a filigree
necklace ;)

Also: currently the ruling is explicitly only valid for those 37 APIs. 

If Oracle would loose the appeal, the next court might even widen it to a general rule (as
the EuGH already did afaik).

As someone pointed out, this is also a much more complex 'political' game. If Oracle does
_not_ appeal, would they than risk getting sued by their own share holders (for not trying
to do in their best interrest) ?


LieGrue,
strub



----- Original Message -----
> From: Emmanuel Lécharny <elecharny@gmail.com>
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Friday, June 1, 2012 12:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Regarding Java and the LGPL (fwd)
> 
> Le 6/1/12 5:22 AM, Roy T. Fielding a écrit :
>>  On May 31, 2012, at 6:09 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> 
>>>  On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Roy T. 
> Fielding<fielding@gbiv.com>  wrote:
>>>>  One of the nice things about today's Alsup ruling is that we
>>>>  can finally, definitively, and without regard to the FSF's 
> opinions,
>>>>  resolve the issue of name-based dynamic binding in Java and its
>>>>  meaning for the LGPL terms.  The names are not copyrightable.
>>>> 
>>>>  http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120531173633275
>>>  An article on CNET suggests that the ruling is more narrow than that:
>>> 
>>> 
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57444928-38/judge-says-37-oracle-apis-are-not-copyrightable/
>>  It isn't general to all APIs.  It is general to the issue of name-based
>>  dynamic binding in Java because that is why the specific APIs were
>>  deemed non-copyrightable.
>> 
>>  IOW, he affirmed Larry's interpretation of the same copyright laws.
> 
> Oracle is likely to appeal the ruling, so what if the next ruling says 
> something different ? (just curious)
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Cordialement,
> Emmanuel Lécharny
> www.iktek.com
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message