Re: Lilypond \include statements and the GPL

[David Kastrup]

Anthonys Lists <address@hidden> writes:

> On 02/04/2013 22:31, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Anthonys Lists <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Indeed, this legal claim (that using functions creates a derivative
>>> work) is exactly the claim that Oracle tried with Android and Java,
>>> and they came a royal cropper with it.
>> "exactly" in the meaning of "quite the opposite of".  Oracle did not try
>> to cover code intended to compile with their Java libraries, but rather
>> tried to prohibit a compatible reimplementation from scratch of the Java
>> code implementing the APIs.
>>
>> So Oracle was trying to prohibit reimplementing the code _behind_ the
>> APIs, whereas we are talking about the implications of the APIs on the
>> code _calling_ them.
>>
> Hmmm... I don't think that's the way they actually put it. That's what
> they were trying to do, true.
>
> But as I understand it, the lawsuit as actually sued said "apis are
> copyright"

That summary does not even make grammatical sense.

> and you would have needed a licence to use the apis - to use Oracle's
> Java.

That wasn't what the lawsuit was about.  It was not even what Oracle
claimed the lawsuit to be about.  The issue was the reimplementation of
Java classes, not the _use_ of Java classes.

-- 
David Kastrup