Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This post is FUD. Her argument contends that the trial determined that because the Java APIs were open, they can be used anywhere and be considered fair use. Therefore code licensed under GPL can be used anywhere and be considered fair use.

A lawyer that has practiced in IP has commented with a rebuttal:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/death-free-software-how-googl...

...

(1) the jury's verdict concerns the APIs, not the software itself. The APIs should never have been subject to copyrightability, IMHO (see http://epiclaw.net/sean-hogle-articles/oracle-v-google), but setting that aside, your assertion that the jury somehow killed software licensing or open source licensing is baseless. Only the APIs, i.e. the labels and classification methods, were at issue in the trial, not the code implementing those APIs. (2) "Google is an advertising company": I've seen this comment before, and it's an obvious back-handed slam at Google. Google is a technology company whose business model relies on advertising. Google has not only contributed more to the advancement of humanity with its innovations than most companies ever have, but it has also been a force for good in reinvigorating fair use in the digital age. (3) "You can kiss GPL goodbye". Google has adopted the OpenJDK Java implementation licensed under GPL. Android is GPL-based.

...




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: