|
|
|
| Authored by: BitOBear on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 07:01 AM EDT |
Hey Google lawyers. Time to file another JAAMOL.
Since Oracle proved the seven files were devoid of creative content since the
decompiled copy is the result of transforming the purely functional object code
back into a source file, they have also proved that the copies of those files
that were used were devoid of non-functional expression.
As a matter of law, and wholly outside the issue of whether APIs can be subject
of copyright protection, -these- -seven- files are demonstrated to -NOT- be
eligible for that protection. The original sources with comments might have
been, but the files Google et al possessed were the result of pure analysis of
the functional parts of the expression. That these parts matched the original
parts proves that all of the overlapping text between the two files must, by
definition, not qualify as expressive.
===
Second JAAMOL:
Oracle proved that the rangeCheck() function was -donated- to the Java effort.
There was no writing sufficient to transfer copyright ownership, so -Oracle-
proved that Oracle doesn't hold the copyright to the rangeCheck() function
before the court.
Note that donating code to a project is -not- the same as the donation of a
physical object to a charity. Since my donation does not a priori deprive me of
the same code or any interests in same, such a donation is, absent an explicit
writing to transfer copyright, the grant of a non-exclusive license to use and
disseminate.
The statement "you may use this as you see fit" is -legally- different
from the same statement followed by "and I shall never use this again and
do hereby disclaim any right to give it to others."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
