Re:U.S. Supreme Court Denies Google's Request to Appeal Orac...
by Zigurd on Monday June 29, 2015 @09:42PM
(#9802352)
> But Lisp FFI declarations that compile down to the same ABI do not infringe...
Doesn't this get into hair splitting? Somewhere in that Lisp code there's the symbolic name, as defined in the C code, for the function/entry point, and the C type-names for the parameters. Those are copyright protected. This is how I would expect Oracle to argue that changing language syntax does not excuse you from licensing their "copyright protected API."
Doesn't this get into hair splitting? Somewhere in that Lisp code there's the symbolic name, as defined in the C code, for the function/entry point, and the C type-names for the parameters. Those are copyright protected. This is how I would expect Oracle to argue that changing language syntax does not excuse you from licensing their "copyright protected API."