What I don't understand is how this can threaten the GPL? The GPL is a
detailed legal document that lays out exactly what the user of the licensed
software agrees to. "copyright" is a more general category. Fair use is a
more general concept. The GPL is a specific license.
It is almost like saying, "today there was a court case that showed a certain
kind of contract is invalid...so now all contracts, of that kind or any other
kind, are in jeopardy!" Of course some contracts can be shown to be invalid
but that in no way implies that all other contracts need to worry.
The reason that the GPL is such a detailed document, rather than just covered
with a blanket generic copyright, is to help avoid confusion. In the case
between Oracle and Google, my guess is that the copyright was not elaborated
on in the form of a detailed license that Google agreed to.
If that is not true, if they did enter into a clear license agreement which
Google then violated, and if that license agreement was similar to the GPL,
then I can see a threat to the GPL from this case.
