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