On Thu, 3 May 2012 06:43:45 -0700, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote:
>Right, Walt. Their claims fly in the face of precedent as I understand it. > >They are trying to claim than any implementation of Java is a derivative >work (see earlier posts in this thread) of the Java specifications. I >predict -- and hope -- they lose. No, I don't -think- that's what they're claiming. The Java language is rather straightforward. But knowing the -language- doesn't really help you write Java programs. Most programs have to rely on the library of function calls that Sun provided, and Oracle seems to be claiming that the library is separate from the language, and that the library calls (the API) are a "look and feel" expression that is copyrightable. So anyone is free to make a Java interpreter or compiler, but they can't implement the same library without duplicating Oracle's look-and-feel. They could implement a different library of function calls, but of course at that point none of the Java programs expecting Oracle's library would work. -- Walt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
