On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus < lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
> Take a routine that converts an integer to a string: Why would you > force someone to change what is an obvious name, simply because someone > else already used it ? > I don't think that API is reviewed on per routine basis. API is reviewed as a whole. Also, in 2010 the first trial in US (if jurisdiction matters) court decision was that APIs cannot be copyrighted. So later the case was changed from a copyright violation to unfair use. That's actually contained in the court ruling as well: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.#Appeals_Court_and_finding_of_non-fair-use ) "Instead, the Court found that Google's purpose had been to enhance its nascent Android platform's attractiveness to existing developers, who were often familiar with Java, and to avoid the "drudgery" of rewriting the code (which they could have done) needed to implement the 170 lines of API detail which were indeed required." In general, they're not trying to impose a copyright on each function declaration owned by Oracle. Instead, they're claiming that Google made an unfair use of Oracle's (Sun) work. The unfairness is driven by Google competing with the Oracle with its Android system. If Microsoft will try to come up with its own "windows emulator" for Linux, then they might run into issues with Wine (but Wine would likely win, because they were there first, providing binary compatibility) thanks, Dmitry
-- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
