On Fri, May 21, 2021, 6:34 PM Daniel Berjón Díez <asuranceturix@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 22:26, Manhong Dai <daimh@umich.edu> wrote:
Further, as Daniel already pointed out, this case is just about API.
I did no such thing, I merely pointed out that one of their arguments is that the copy was not substantial in volume, and it was a lot more than three lines for a patch; actually, they specifically did not rule on the API copyrightability issue.
Very fun discussion! Thanks for the inspiration! In the Syllabus, page 2 and 3 of the opinion, it is all about API or "user interface". https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_new_0e04.pdf Everybody can argue about that a diff patch file is 'fair use' or not. But I think we can agree that 'fair use' is always case by case as it depends on how large/important the the patch is. I also think we can agree that most of the patch files are neither API nor "user interface" as in the opinion above. If the patch file is more than API, I am certain that the two dissenting justices will think it is also a copyright violation, and I am not certain how many of the other 6 justices will vote. Just my naive understanding about the Scotus opinion, it is worth $0.019 due to the current inflation, and it is worth zero in Europe. Best, Manhong