Op-ed: Oracle attorney says Google’s court victory might kill the GPL

[StefCT]

On 05/31/2016 11:16 AM, RA Stehmann wrote:
> 
> Lawrence Rosen, den ich wegen der Lizenz seiner Ausführungen nennen darf
> und muss, hat folgendes hierzu geschrieben:
> 
> "<Licensed under CC-BY.>


> 
> I responded to the audience that the "API portion" of that ugly brass lamp
> was not the figurine in a classic pose. That figurine part - for whatever it
> is worth - is copyrightable and cannot be copied without permission. The
> light bulb socket, however, and the on-off switch, and the AC power cord at
> the bottom - those were manufactured objects subject to an API. Oracle and
> the figurine's creator could no more claim those a copyrightable work than
> could Faraday claim electricity or Edison claim all electric lights made
> with a screw-like metal connector at the bottom.


Wenn ich die Ausführungen korrekt verstanden habe, bedeutet Oracles
Logik also Folgendes: Angenommen, die Lampe stünde unter der GPL, dann
soll niemand vergleichbare Kabel, Lichtschalter oder Lampensockel
anbieten dürfen, ohne sie ebenfalls unter die GPL zu stellen. Richtig?

Viele Grüße

Stef