[License-discuss] Google v. Oracle

[Pamela Chestek]

The patent claim also dropped very quickly out of the case at very early 
stages - I think there may have been one published opinion about the 
patent claims but it wasn't significant IIRC.

I'm not sure what you mean by "check the case according to the free 
software permissions," but the case really has nothing to do with free 
software. Google did not claim to be using Java under the GPLv2 
w/classpath exception, they had copied a commercial version of Java and 
also had not complied with the OpenJDK license. The court therefore 
didn't have any reason to discuss a free software license.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
PO Box 2492
Raleigh, NC 27602
919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com

On 4/29/2021 7:05 AM, Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz via License-discuss wrote:
> Just a candid question from someone that has not closely followed the 
> case.
> The case moved from patent infringement (original claim in 2010) to 
> copyright infringement: 1) are API copyrightable 2) was their use fair 
> or not?  The second question only was answered by the Supreme Court.
> Did someone check the case according to the free software permissions 
> granted by the library license (GPL-2.0 I presume)?
> Patrice-Emmanuel
>
> Le sam. 24 avr. 2021 à 22:16, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com 
> <mailto:lrosen at rosenlaw.com>> a écrit :
>
>     To: OSI License Discuss
>
>     For those of you interested in the details of the Google v. Oracle
>     case and the arguments raised by the lawyers and the Supreme
>     Court, this is an excellent 1-hour summary:
>
>     https://youtu.be/BDLTOwoSRNg <https://youtu.be/BDLTOwoSRNg>
>
>     There is a 1-hour CLE credit if you want it. Please enjoy. /Larry
>
>     Lawrence Rosen
>
>     707-478-8932
>
>     3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and
>     not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official
>     statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an
>     opensource.org <http://opensource.org> email address.
>
>     License-discuss mailing list
>     License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>     <mailto:License-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
>     http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>     <http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
> pe.schmitz at gmail.com <mailto:pe.schmitz at gmail.com>
> tel. + 32 478 50 40 65
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the 
Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210430/7e8ff821/attachment.html>