No. If one wanted to write a clean-room implementation of WebObjects'
APIs, that is exactly what the decision in 2014 spoke to. So, for those
of us in the US, that decision said we could not implement something
which implemented the APIs.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/oracles-java-api-code-protected-by-copyright-appeals-court-rules/
Now it seems much clearer that, yes the APIs can be copyrighted but
implementing an API can be a fair use of the API.
- ray
On 5/26/16 4:54 PM, Lon Varscsak wrote:
I think a clean-room implementation was probably always defendable,
however, no one that I know is doing that. Looking at de-compiled
source isn’t “clean”. :P
-Lon
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Ray Kiddy <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Well, Google just won their case against Oracle. I am not a
lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I think that this means a
clean-room re-implementation is legally doable. Just saying.
- ray
On 5/3/16 8:19 AM, Hugi Thordarson wrote:
Hi all.
We probably all know that WO's been practically dead to Apple
for a long time, but unfortunately Apple has refused to state
so officially (at least I don't recall there being an official
statement).
<snip>
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/lon.varscsak%40gmail.com
This email sent to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected])
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [email protected]
