

"You can't help but feel embarrassed for Oracle" on copyright claims - grellas
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120413141851964

======
runningdogx
I think Oracle has gone round the bend, but does the anti-Oracle view of APIs
mean basically that all GPL software is LGPL?

When you call a function, why should that function's copyright status have any
bearing on the copyright status of your function? Because they're in the same
file? What is a file?

~~~
jrockway
A library's header file is included verbatim into your file by the compiler,
as is the library file by the linker. When you copy-and-paste something into
your own work, copyright covers the copying.

One technicality is that until you compile the program, no copying is taking
place, so the GPL can't apply to source code. The only argument against that I
see is that you're _intending_ for the copy to take place, which is as good as
the copy actually taking place. But I have no idea. (OTOH, not many people try
to avoid the GPL when sharing their source code anyway.)

If you have a billion-dollar idea that depends on the GPL working, you should
probably hire a very good lawyer to advise you.

------
ChuckMcM
I really hope this generates an opinion on the applicability of copyright to
APIs, I doubt it will though as it would seem to threaten many folks rent-
seeking. It would seem however that the legal theory that undid IBM and
allowed Memorex to make 'plug compatible' storage would inform the court on
how it should consider 'plug compatible' software.

