Oracle v. Google

[Alex Henrie]

Hello,

As you have probably already heard, last week a US court made the crazy
decision that the name and arguments of a function are both copyrightable
and not protected by fair use, even if duplicating them is necessary for
basic software compatibility:
https://cdn.patentlyo.com/media/2018/03/17-1118.Opinion.3-26-2018.1.pdf

Does anyone know exactly how much this ruling affects Wine? Can we ask the
SFC for a legal opinion?

-Alex

[Aaryaman Vasishta]

On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Alex Henrie  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As you have probably already heard, last week a US court made the crazy
> decision that the name and arguments of a function are both copyrightable
> and not protected by fair use, even if duplicating them is necessary for
> basic software compatibility:
> https://cdn.patentlyo.com/media/2018/03/17-1118.Opinion.3-26-2018.1.pdf
>
> Does anyone know exactly how much this ruling affects Wine? Can we ask the
> SFC for a legal opinion?
>
> -Alex
>
> This worries me as well. Does this also affect black-box reverse

engineered API's which Wine consists of?

Jam

[Austin English]

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 6:14 AM, Aaryaman Vasishta
 wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Alex Henrie  wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > As you have probably already heard, last week a US court made the crazy
> > decision that the name and arguments of a function are both copyrightable
> > and not protected by fair use, even if duplicating them is necessary for
> > basic software compatibility:
> > https://cdn.patentlyo.com/media/2018/03/17-1118.Opinion.3-26-2018.1.pdf
> >
> > Does anyone know exactly how much this ruling affects Wine? Can we ask the
> > SFC for a legal opinion?
> >
> > -Alex
>
> This worries me as well. Does this also affect black-box reverse engineered
> API's which Wine consists of?
>
> Jam

The committee has been in contact with Conservancy about this. As of
now, what we've learned is that it's too early to know the effect the
decision will have. It's important to note that the decision isn't
binding on any other courts in the country, and it could be years for
the appeals process to complete.

[Alex Henrie]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 4:31 PM Austin English 
wrote:
> The committee has been in contact with Conservancy about this. As of
> now, what we've learned is that it's too early to know the effect the
> decision will have. It's important to note that the decision isn't
> binding on any other courts in the country, and it could be years for
> the appeals process to complete.

Thanks for the explanation. I didn't realize that the decision isn't
binding on the entire USA or that there were still years left in the
appeals process.

-Alex

[Austin English]

On Sun, Apr 15, 2018, 14:50 Alex Henrie  wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 4:31 PM Austin English 
> wrote:
> > The committee has been in contact with Conservancy about this. As of
> > now, what we've learned is that it's too early to know the effect the
> > decision will have. It's important to note that the decision isn't
> > binding on any other courts in the country, and it could be years for
> > the appeals process to complete.
>
> Thanks for the explanation. I didn't realize that the decision isn't
> binding on the entire USA or that there were still years left in the
> appeals process.

My personal opinion, not speaking for the committee or SFC:

The opinion is only binding in that district. It needs to come from the
Supreme Court to be binding everywhere as I understand it (unless Congress
changes the situation via statute).

Regarding years, nothing involving courts or lawyers is fast ;).
>