91–100 of 965 posts
Oh, I forgot this little apocalypse was hanging over our heads. It's good to see some sanity.
It's great for software, it'll be an interesting documentary someday. And congratulations to all the lawyers for making a ton of money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a large scale defeat of the GPL and dual licensing, so I'm not sure how this could be anything but a sad day for sustainable open source development. If you're big enough and have enough lawyers, there's no reason to license software you want to build on.
How does this ruling interact with GPL?
From the dissent: "In the 1990s, Oracle created a programming language called Java..." Sun Microsystems was acquired in 2010... I guess I should give Thomas the benefit of the doubt that he intended the statement to apply to Oracle's owned IP & not be a historical account of the language's creation and creators, but this rubbed me the wrong way.
Not surprised at all the Thomas and Alito are in that dissent..
First of all, very good news. Second of all, what does this mean for Fuchsia, Dart, and related projects? I always assumed they were a hedge against Google having to pay exorbitant licensing fees to Oracle. Now that the threat has disappeared, will those projects be sunsetted too?
From the dissent: "In the 1990s, Oracle created a programming language called Java..." Sun Microsystems was acquired in 2010... I guess I should give Thomas the benefit of the doubt that he intended the statement to apply to Oracle's owned IP & not be a historical account of the language's creation and creators, but this rubbed me the wrong way.
It's interesting reading Thomas' dissent. As per typical Thomas appears to be arguing that it's the letter of the law that matters, whereas it's the majority opinion that the motivations and substance of the law are primary. Hackers and programmers tend to try and read the law like computer code to be "hacked" and exploited based on the letter of the law. So you'd expect us to be more sympathetic to Thomas' view. So…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not surprised at all the Thomas and Alito are in that dissent..
I was under the impression that a dissent has to be written, even if they all agree in the majority opinion/ruling?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not surprised at all the Thomas and Alito are in that dissent..
I was under the impression that a dissent has to be written, even if they all agree in the majority opinion/ruling?
If you write a separate opinion while voting with the majority, that's a "concurrence", not a dissent, and those aren't mandatory either.
> "Google copied approximately 11,500 lines of declaring code from the API, which amounts to virtually all the declaring code needed to call up hundreds of different tasks. Those 11,500 lines, however, are only 0.4 percent of the entire API at issue, which consists of 2.86 million total lines. In considering “the amount and substantiality of the portion used” in this case, the 11,500 lines of code should be viewed as…