"Leaving aside that GQL is a language, and thus not copyrightable according to this decision,"

Citation needed?

"AFAICT, GQL is Apache licensed"

This page (https://developers.google.com/appengine/docs/python/datastor...) is not Apache Licensed.

It's "Except as otherwise noted, the content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License,"

Given they haven't complied with the license (no citation, no attribution), calling this a "licensed use" is quite a stretch. It's actually pretty clearly not a licensed use.

"This decision does not affect you if your implementing an API in accordance with the license."

Which open source projects rarely do ...

Really, do you think the TOS of most of these websites or software allow you to make your own implementations? Are most of them who do get "licenses" being careful about actually following license requirements?

Every major open-source project complies, or tries to comply with licenses. Tiny projects don't matter because no one will sue them (and no one uses them anyway). Even if a completely imaginary scenario takes place, all they'll need to do to comply is add attribution, or something in the same vein. There's no earthquake coming.

As to copyrighting a language:

The appeals court makes a clear distinction between the Java programming language (i.e., the commands/keywords that are free for everyone to use) and the APIs, and finds that only three of the Java APIs in question are basically part of the Java language, but "Google could have written its own API packages using the Java languages", which, as the opinion notes, "Google chose not to do".

http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/oracle-wins-android-java-...

First, bullshit. Here's one on the front page right now: https://github.com/simon-weber/Unofficial-Google-Music-API

Do you think this is a licensed API? Your "nobody will sue tiny projects" thought is contravened by history.

Here's one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer

We'll strongly disagree as to where this decision will lead. Thankfully, I know i'm not the only one worried.

Also, fosspatents is not a legal decision, nor did you actually cite anything that backs up your claim: Your claim was the decision says the language was not copyrightable. It says no such thing. What it says is "It is undisputed that the Java programming language is open and free for anyone to use."

This is because it was licensed, not because it is uncopyrightable.

That project doesn't clone an API. It uses one. It might be violating TOS, but not copyright.

I didn't know about the Katzer case, but I still see no danger to the FOSS community and ecosystem by the new ruling. All it would do is require developers to clearly specify the license for their APIs. Cloning of proprietary APIs is most certainly not a cornerstone of FOSS today (unless, that is, Linux is in actual danger, in which case I'll change my position).

Actually, it both uses one and clones one :)

"Cloning of proprietary APIs is most certainly not a cornerstone of FOSS today (unless, that is, Linux is in actual danger, in which case I'll change my position)."

I would disagree, but I can't say more, sadly.

Wouldn't this break Wine?

fosspatents is run by a (paid) Microsoft shill. He calls himself an IP pundit or something. Groklaw basically outed him before he owned up to being on Microsoft's payroll publicly.

He is loyal to his employer but his analysis and projections are often contradicted by facts.

> Google intentionally chose not to comply with the OpenJDK license, and claimed that the APIs aren't copyrightable

Perhaps Google didn't comply with OpenJDK license because it didn't exist when Google used Java Apache Harmony implementation.