|
Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 10:28 PM EDT |
Oracle has found a way to claim copyright applying to what one might otherwise
think of as "just names". That's what the argument in the case is
about.
As an example, the java.util.List<E> interface extends
java.util.Collection<E> which extends java.util.Iterable<T>.
It inherits one method from Iterable, 14 methods from Collection, and specifies
10 more methods.
Two of its methods return a new interface type java.util.ListIterator which
extends java.util.Iterator and specifies six new methods in addition to the
three it inherits from java.util.Iterator.
Each of the methods mentioned above has a signature, comprised of a return type,
a method name, an ordered sequence of argument types, and a possibly empty list
of checked exceptions that it can throw.
You can say that it is "just names" but Oracle is claiming that there
is something that can be copyrighted in the specific information that I have
just described.
I happen to disagree, but the argument against them cannot be a simple "it
is just a list of names" because you could make the same argument that a
book is "just a list of words".
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|