On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Ali Sternburg <[email protected]>wrote:
> Sorry, I should have added the disclaimer of "I have not read the whole > thing because I am in the middle of finals but I was forwarded it with that > subject line and wanted to share it with other people who might appreciate > it and understand it better"! That's approximately how I feel about every single big ECJ ruling for the first few days. In case you (like me) need some secondary sources to unpack the sometimes-arcane ECJ language, I can recommend: Groklaw: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120502083035371 and, for what it's worth, IPKat: http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/not-much-of-sos-for-sas.html For those not up to long-form secondary sources, Niels here: On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Niels Westerlaken < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> [...] >> >> So what can not be copyrighted are the functionality of a computer >> program or the programming language. This will matter in i.e. the >> Oracle/Google case. >> > reads it like I do, except I'm not actually sure, jurisdictionally speaking, whether it will have a practical impact on Oracle v. Google. Parker -- parker higgins san francisco, ca http://parkerhiggins.net gmail / gchat: [email protected] twitter / identi.ca: @xor skype: thisisparker please consider software freedom before reading this e-mail on a proprietary platform
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
