24 karma · joined November 18, 2015
Meaning it is (or was) not, at the time the issue arose.
Additionally, in a legal context it is "more complex" because the artist marketed these as vignettes of his Instagram feed. To prove copyright infringement, one would establish copyright ownership of the artist's feed. Who own's a particular user's Instagram feed -- the user, Instagram, or is it shared copyright of all entities listed within the feed? To enforce copyright the latter would need to be true since the artwork is marketed as part of a social media feed.
Simply the act of "develop[ing] Java apps" falls entirely within a fair interpretation of the license. The difference is best understood in the Solicitor General's Brief (pg. 5 http://www.scribd.com/doc/266703948/Goog-v-Oracle-Solicitor-...):
Although a Java programmer is free to write new code from scratch without relying on prewritten methods, the Java Standard Library provides convenient building blocks for writing computer programs.
Although respondent [Oracle] does not claim a copyright interest in the Java language itself, respondent owns a copyright in the Java Standard Library. Pet App. 7. Respondent makes the Java Standard Library available to computer programmers under any of three copyright licenses, including a conditional royalty-free license. See id. at 7-8.
On page 7: Petitioner [Google] assets that it copied the declaring code so that programmers familiar with the Java platform would be able to switch over to the Android platform without having to learn entirely new commands for invoking commonly used methods.
In total, petitioner copied approximately 7000 lines of declaring code.
Herein lies the core issue -- Google did not have a prearranged license agreement to copy the declaring code of Java's standard library, and in doing so infringed on the copyright by using it in their own platform.
Section F of the Oracle Binary Code License reads JAVA TECHNOLOGY RESTRICTIONS. You may not create, modify, or change the behavior of, or authorize your licensees to create, modify, or change the behavior of, classes, interfaces, or subpackages that are in any way identified as "java", "javax", "sun", “oracle” or similar convention as specified by Oracle in any naming convention designation.
tldr; Consider a painting created by an artist. A photographer comes along and thinks, "great painting!" and snaps a photo. If the photographer goes on to distribute and replicate the photograph of this painting (without an agreement with the artist) and earns a profit, the photographer has infringed on the artist's copyright.
A service allowing consumers to "find and fix known vulnerabilities in Node.js dependencies" certainly does not require a transferable license (especially one with the right to sub-license). A transferable license allows the licensee to freely assign the license to any other party without the licensor's consent. The wording includes the right to sub-license, allowing the same license to be granted to another third-party -- again, without the need to obtain the licensor's consent due to its inclusion as part of the transferable license statement.