On 14-10-20 01:18 AM, Robinson Tryon wrote:
---
CONCLUSION
This order does not hold that Java API packages are free for all to
use without license.It does not hold that the structure, sequence and
organization of all computer programs may be stolen. Rather, it holds
on the specific facts of this case, the particular elements replicated
by Google were free for all to use under the Copyright Act
---
I can see how on a cursory examination one might read "it does not
hold that SSO of all programs may be stolen", and be confused that it
implies "some SSO may be stolen", but the next sentence states that
(in the court's view) the elements in question were free for all under
the Copyright Act (which I interpret to mean: not copyright-eligible).
Interesting, I think that the above quote is from the decision by the
original trial judge, Alsup?
'Though the trial court did add the caveat that it “does not hold that
the structure, sequence and organization of all computer programs may be
stolen,” Copyrightability Decision, 872 F. Supp. 2d at 1002, it is hard
to see how its method of operation analysis could lead to any other
conclusion.' page 42, appeals court decision
Maybe the appeals court has it wrong, and Alsup's logic doesn't apply to
*all* computer programs, but just to libre software. Only libre
software makes the "particular elements" (method signatures, etc,)
"freely available" to be copied *verbatim*. So, now, for any GPL
licensed program I can think of, it's now possible, by Alsup's
reasoning, to steal the SSO. Whether Alsup's reasoning applies to *all*
computer programs, or just publicly available, GPL licensed programs
isn't quite clear to me. I think his reasoning only applies to libre
software where the actual code is publicly available.
-Thufir
