It&#x27;s quite a stretch to say that the FSF supported Oracle before the Supreme
Court. Also you seem to think that the FSF supports API copyrightability as a
means of making free software more attractive to developers. This is not at
all their position. Here is what they said at the time of the Jury verdict in
the first trial[1]:<p><i>Were it grounded in reality, Oracle&#x27;s claim that copyright law gives them
proprietary control over any software that uses a particular functional API
would be terrible for free software and programmers everywhere. It is an
unethical and greedy interpretation created with the express purpose of
subjugating as many computer users as possible, and is particularly bad in
this context because it comes at a time when the sun has barely set on the
free software community&#x27;s celebration of Java as a language newly suitable for
use in the free world. Fortunately, the claim is not yet reality, and we hope
Judge Alsup will keep it that way.</i><p>As for their brief against Google&#x27;s petition to the Supreme Court[2]:<p><i>SFLC and FSF take the position that the decision below is wrong, but that
certiorari should not be granted for three reasons: (1) the decision of the
Federal Circuit merely mispredicts what the Ninth Circuit would do if it had
been the Court resolving Oracle&#x27;s appeal from the District Court&#x27;s finding
that the application program interface declarations at issue are
non-copyrightable; (2) the decision rests on narrow factual grounds; and (3)
there is no public interest in continuing to adjudicate this dispute because
Google can now and could have used all material at issue under the terms of
the GNU GPL v2.</i><p>What to make of this? It&#x27;s a bit convoluted. On the general issue of 
proprietary APIs, the FSF supports Google&#x27;s position. But they think the 
judgement against Google from the Federal Circuit court carries virtually no
value as precedent, as they say in
their brief[3]:<p><i>Despite the manifestly erroneous character of the decision below, the petition
for writ of certiorari should not be granted. The precedential weight of a
decision so evidently mispredicting the law of another Circuit is essentially
nil.</i><p>Now independently of the Oracle v. Google dispute, they would prefer if Google
were using the GPL license for Android. Wouldn&#x27;t it be nice if the bad Federal
Circuit judgment could incentivize Google to use the GPL, without affecting
other cases?  I think that is the tactical advantage the FSF saw in opposing
Google&#x27;s petition to the Supreme Court. And it might have been a good call, as
Google is indeed switching to the GPL Java implementation[4].<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fsf.org&#x2F;news&#x2F;fsf-statement-on-jurys-partial-verdict-in-oracle-v-google" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.fsf.org&#x2F;news&#x2F;fsf-statement-on-jurys-partial-verd...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.softwarefreedom.org&#x2F;news&#x2F;2014&#x2F;dec&#x2F;08&#x2F;sflc-files-against-scotus-cert-google_v_oracle&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.softwarefreedom.org&#x2F;news&#x2F;2014&#x2F;dec&#x2F;08&#x2F;sflc-files-...</a><p>[3] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.softwarefreedom.org&#x2F;resources&#x2F;2014&#x2F;google_v_oracle-sflc_cert_amicus.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.softwarefreedom.org&#x2F;resources&#x2F;2014&#x2F;google_v_orac...</a><p>[4] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;tech-policy&#x2F;2016&#x2F;01&#x2F;android-n-switches-to-openjdk-google-tells-oracle-it-is-protected-by-the-gpl&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;tech-policy&#x2F;2016&#x2F;01&#x2F;android-n-switche...</a>