> which held that copyright law does not protect libraries
Correct me if I’m wrong but it held that this specific case was fair use, not that structure, function name, etc are not copyrightable. While it does give a huge precedent case, code in itself is still under copyright by default.
As others mention, the language itself isn't that important. Like so many other languages e.g. Python, it is basically a Lisp underneath a layer of infix syntax. Most of the work went into what in Python terms would be called the standard library, which includes a stupendous amount of scientific and mathematical code, a lot of which is not so easy to implement.
Prior copyright cases allowed protection for “structure, sequence, and organization” (SSO) of software. Oracle’s basic argument was that Google copied the SSO of Java for Android/Dalvik. The Oracle decision undid that when it came to reimplementing APIs and libraries so that code could be compatible between systems. Basically, now no one can own an API or prevent anyone else from reimplementing and selling a compatible API, at least not in the U.S.
(I am a lawyer, but not your lawyer. Not legal advice, etc.)
Correct me if I’m wrong but it held that this specific case was fair use, not that structure, function name, etc are not copyrightable. While it does give a huge precedent case, code in itself is still under copyright by default.
But IANAL.