9 hours ago, TexasToast wrote
Oracle should spend their money on developing something new and stop paying attorneys to go to court on Lawsuits that amount to jealousy.
That ruling is not about Oracle getting compensation on something they developed. Sun developed Java.
So? If Oracle didn't get legal rights for Java, they would have paid less to buy Sun, which would mean that Sun developers would have gotten less compensation for their work.
The idea that you shouldn't be able to get money for a thing you bought as opposed to a thing you made is anti-capitalist. If you can make money from it yourself, you should be able to sell it.
That's not to say I don't fully side with Google on this one. Interfaces (and APIs) are clearly something that shouldn't be copyrightable, because it would give platform owners (such as Windows, iOS, Android and, indeed, Java) an enormous - and in my view, unfair - advantage over other platforms innovating and competing by blocking them from being platform-compatible with software written for the huge and pre-existing platforms.
So this is clearly a good thing for the market, and for software development generally. But let's not confuse outcome with principle. Because this judgement also means if you provide a closed-source API-equivalent version of a GPL product, the GPL owners won't have a claim on the closed-source API (since you can't copyright, and therefore can't GPL-ify) an API - just as long as none of the GPL code makes it into the product as well.
I think that's a good thing too; but lots of people who are braying over the victory aren't doing it because of the principle that APIs shouldn't be copyrightable, but over the fact that their guy won.
It's a good decision, but I'm just saying: if you're deciding whether the outcome is good based on your opinion of Google, Oracle, Android or Java, you're Doing It Wrong (TM).