On Saturday, May 10, 2014 11:37:36 PM UTC-7, da...@axiom-developer.org wrote: > > > At the risk of getting slightly off-topic here, here's a comment on > > Hacker News from a well-respected commenter on legal issues - he's a > > lawyer specialising in startup and technology law and his analysis is > > uniformly excellent. He argues that while the result may be > > unpalatable, it's by no means the stitch-up by technological > > ignoramuses that that article makes it sound: > > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7722674 > > Judge Alsop conflated two distinct and non-overlapping areas of > intellectual property law by claiming that a copyrightable work > (the API) must "rise to the level of warranting patent protection". > While that's a novel idea, it is nowhere in the copyright law. > (Oracle, by the way, also holds patents on Java). > > Where the new decision might have a direct impact on Clojure would be > if someone were to create a stand-alone Clojure (or other products > that enable a developer to use Java directly in their products) that > was compatible with the JVM-hosted version. There would seem to be a > need for API-compatible functions. Doubly so if you could excute jar > files. The court could find that "infringing", it seems. snip... >
Well, the jvm on my system is licensed by Oracle. I am licensed to feed byte code into it. My license does not exclude byte code generated by another's compiler. What Google didn't license was the mobile version of java, which is different from the jdk/jre I use. I use Oracle's java library (apis) and jars as per its license. I am not attempting to re-implement any part of the sun.* or java.* packages. The clojure people do not distribute Oracle's or any one's java compiler, jvm, or runtime. Everyone who uses clojure does so by having a licensed version of the jvm. There is a higher court which may reverse on appeal. Google has a chance in the original court by making an argument that this was fair use. Whatever the merits of a standalone clojure — and that would be a lot of work and many buggy years as the jvm and the java library is reimplemented with original apis (and isn't that what Oracle said was the thing that Google did that infringed?) — now is not the moment. I don't know if this is a straw man argument or not, but for those who want to punish Oracle by leaving them their ball and going home, I don't think they care. Besides many parts of java is GPLV2, so could they really just send a bill? Not an attorney, blah, blah, blah. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
