Re: will have to think about getting a license each time he/she overrides a library method
Because sbt has no idea what he's talking about.
He's apparently got it in his head that Oracle's right, Google's wrong and that an API == source code. Anything to the contrary will be conveniently ignored, misinterpreted, or misconstrued.
It's why he keeps repeating that:
* the SCOTUS already ruled that Google copied too much code illegally (they didn't).
* that an API == source code (it isn't)
* that Google could have licensed Java SE from Oracle (they couldn't)
* that Google copied vast amounts of source code directly from Java (they didn't just the API, the majority of the files copied were done so legally from Apache Harmony)
* that the fact that the API was contained in a computer file as opposed to a book is in any way legally significant (it isn't)
* that the number of function signatures you copy is legally meaningful (if you can copy one you can copy a million, it doesn't change the legal analysis)
* that there haven't already been lower court cases that have decided an API wasn't copyrightable (there was, see USL v. BSDi 1992, Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 1996, heck even Baker v. Selden all the way back in 1879)
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
