> > In any case Judge Alsup has already

> > ruled there is no copyright protection for

> > the Java API class and method names per se

> Has he? That would seem to be "game over" for Oracle's

> copyright claims, then.

See the recent Groklaw article:

Judge William Alsup trimmed their feathers and stuck to what he said in his earlier order, namely that API names are not protected by copyright and neither are the names of "packages, classes and methods".

Also he says the jury will be told that it's a fact that the Java language is free for everyone to use. That's based on "Oracle's concessions at hearings". They'll also be told that there is a dispute between the parties as to whether or not APIs and class libraries are part of the language.

---
Do the arithmetic or be doomed to talk nonsense. -- John McCarthy (1927-2011)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]