Can languages still be copyrighted?
P.M.
copyright on programming languages. Does anyone know if this is still
the case? To complicate things, what about library API's (e.g. could
something like the Java or .NET class libraries be copyrighted,
restricting 3rd party implementations)?
If a vendor created a specific language and claimed copyright on it,
would a 3rd party be restricted from implementing a parser, compiler
or compatible library for that language?
Thanks,
Peter
Isaac
> I remember several years ago that there were attempts to enforce
> copyright on programming languages. Does anyone know if this is still
> the case? To complicate things, what about library API's (e.g. could
> something like the Java or .NET class libraries be copyrighted,
> restricting 3rd party implementations)?
I don't believe it's possible to copyright a programming language.
Can you give cite an example of a language that is so protected.
Under US law, you cannot protect a method of operation or functionality
by copyright. I don't think individual key words could be protected by
copyright either.
Isaac
Fergus Henderson
>I remember several years ago that there were attempts to enforce
>copyright on programming languages. Does anyone know if this is still
>the case?
Yes, it is still the case that there were once attempts to enforce
copyright on programming languages... as far as I know, it is also
still the case that such attempts have not been very successful.
--
Fergus Henderson <f...@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne | of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
P.M.
...
>
> I don't believe it's possible to copyright a programming language.
> Can you give cite an example of a language that is so protected.
>
> Under US law, you cannot protect a method of operation or functionality
> by copyright. I don't think individual key words could be protected by
> copyright either.
>
> Isaac
There is some sort of copyright on the PostScript language:
"Adobe Systems owns the copyright to the list of operators and written
specification for Adobe's Postscript language. Thus, these elements
of the PostScript language may not be copied without Adobe's
permission".
But the most clearly stated language copyright I have found is on the
Mathematica language:
"Wolfram Research is the holder of the copyright to the Mathematica
software system described in this book, including without limitation
such aspects of the system as its code, structure, sequence,
organization, "look and feel", programming language and compilation of
command names."
(Which reminds me, was the "look'n'feel" copyright issues ever
resolved?)
And beyond the language syntax, are the language libraries and APIs
names copyrightable?
> Under US law, you cannot protect a method of operation or functionality
> by copyright. I don't think individual key words could be protected by
Unless there is a clear precedent, I'm sure large companies have
enough monetary resources to circumvent US law via forms of legal
harrasment. The question is, is it unambiguously clear that
programming languages are not copyrightable?
Joachim Durchholz
> The question is, is it unambiguously clear that
> programming languages are not copyrightable?
Under German law, you cannot copyright a programming language. There's
an (automatic) copyright on any documents on the language, such as
tutorials, the language reference itself, but not on the language itself.
In other words: nobody can unfairly copy the language reference, but you
cannot prevent others from writing a compiler it.
Sun has come closest to control over language. The language itself isn't
protected, but if you wanted to use Sun's source code to implement a
JVM, you had to sign a license that placed obligations on you.
They also registered the Java name as trademark (or something similar),
so that nobody was allowed to place a competing product with a similar
name on the market. (That's what the legal battles between Sun and
Microsoft were about: MS had signed such a license but started to modify
the language and the APIs.)
No need to say that the attempt to retain control over the language was
largely unsuccessful. Not only because it is legally difficult (in the
end, MS wrote their own cleanroom variant of the VM, gave it another
name, and were free to do as they pleased), but also because the market
wouldn't fully accept the language unless Sun gave up direct control.
I'm not sure how things finally worked out (if they did at all). I'm
pretty sure that paying attention to the details of Java will reveal a
lot about what's possible and what isn't: it IS the precedent that was
being asked for.
Regards,
Joachim
--
This is not an official statement from my employer.
Fergus Henderson
>Isaac <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message news:<slrnb3caf...@latveria.castledoom.org>...
>...
>>
>> I don't believe it's possible to copyright a programming language.
>> Can you give cite an example of a language that is so protected.
>>
>> Under US law, you cannot protect a method of operation or functionality
>> by copyright. I don't think individual key words could be protected by
>> copyright either.
>
>There is some sort of copyright on the PostScript language:
>
>"Adobe Systems owns the copyright to the list of operators and written
>specification for Adobe's Postscript language. Thus, these elements
>of the PostScript language may not be copied without Adobe's
>permission".
Adobe can make that claim. But it's definitely not true.
At very least, those elements can be copied under the "fair use"
provisions of copyright law.
>But the most clearly stated language copyright I have found is on the
>Mathematica language:
>
>"Wolfram Research is the holder of the copyright to the Mathematica
>software system described in this book, including without limitation
>such aspects of the system as its code, structure, sequence,
>organization, "look and feel", programming language and compilation of
>command names."
Wolfram Research may claim that.
But that doesn't mean it will all hold up in court.
Liz
"P.M." <p...@cpugrid.net> wrote in message
news:6db3f637.03012...@posting.google.com...
if there were such a restriction could anyone write a parser for ANY
document protected by copyright ? seems to me Google might be in big
trouble ...
Liz
"Joachim Durchholz" <joac...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:3E368A75...@gmx.de...
> P.M. wrote:
> > The question is, is it unambiguously clear that
> > programming languages are not copyrightable?
>
>
> protected, but if you wanted to use Sun's source code to implement a
> JVM, you had to sign a license that placed obligations on you.
the source code for a compiler or interpreter will always be protected by
copyright unless place in the public domain by the author(s)
Christopher Green
> > I remember several years ago that there were attempts to enforce
> > copyright on programming languages. Does anyone know if this is still
> > the case? To complicate things, what about library API's (e.g. could
> > something like the Java or .NET class libraries be copyrighted,
> > restricting 3rd party implementations)?
>
> I don't believe it's possible to copyright a programming language.
> Can you give cite an example of a language that is so protected.
A famous example is the Intel copyright on the opcodes of the 8080. It
forced Zilog to devise an assembly language with different opcodes and
syntax for the Z80.
--
Chris Green
John Slimick
hundred possible PL/n variations -- PL/I, PL/2 or PL/II,
PL/3 or PL/III, etc. There was a PL360 written by Klaus Wirth
and a PL440 (?) from Telefunken, but no others less than
100. Apparently IBM copyrighted PL/S,
since very little material on that language seems to
have become available.
john slimick
sli...@pitt.edu
David Kastrup
Different opcodes? Hardly. The mnemonics for them were different,
and bloody well that they were! There was some Z80 assembly variant,
TDL or something, which was mnemonically upwards compatible to Intel.
What a mess to write in. The chess program Sargon (version 1 or 2)
was written and published in that form.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Isaac
> Isaac <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message news:<slrnb3caf...@latveria.castledoom.org>...
>
> ...
>
>>
>> I don't believe it's possible to copyright a programming language.
>> Can you give cite an example of a language that is so protected.
>>
>> Under US law, you cannot protect a method of operation or functionality
>> by copyright. I don't think individual key words could be protected by
>> copyright either.
>>
>> Isaac
>
> There is some sort of copyright on the PostScript language:
>
> "Adobe Systems owns the copyright to the list of operators and written
> specification for Adobe's Postscript language. Thus, these elements
> of the PostScript language may not be copied without Adobe's
> permission".
The copyright covers lists of operators and the written specification.
It's possible to implement the language without infringing the
copyright on those things. The individual operators arranged in a
purely logical (non creative) order are probably not copyrightable
either.
>
> But the most clearly stated language copyright I have found is on the
> Mathematica language:
>
> "Wolfram Research is the holder of the copyright to the Mathematica
> software system described in this book, including without limitation
> such aspects of the system as its code, structure, sequence,
> organization, "look and feel", programming language and compilation of
> command names."
IMO that's simply an over reaching claim. In amongst the things that
are copyrightable they've dumped some things that may not be.
>
> (Which reminds me, was the "look'n'feel" copyright issues ever
> resolved?)
Some of them were. Look'n'feel covers a lot of ground.
>
> And beyond the language syntax, are the language libraries and APIs
> names copyrightable?
Names probably can't be copyrighted. I don't think that APIs can be
protected if they are necessary for interoperation. The libraries
are copyrightable, but that wouldn't protect them from being
cloned using "clean room" methods.
> Unless there is a clear precedent, I'm sure large companies have
> enough monetary resources to circumvent US law via forms of legal
> harrasment. The question is, is it unambiguously clear that
> programming languages are not copyrightable?
Most things are not so ambiguous that you can guarantee that a
law suit would be immediately dismissed. There is case law
supporting the contention that programming languages are not
copyrightable but it may be possible to distinguish some given
case with past precedent.
Isaac
Isaac
wrote:
I vaguely remember this. I'll look into it.
Isaac
Barry Margolin
John Slimick <sli...@jcs.upb.pitt.edu> wrote:
>It is my understanding that IBM copyrighted the first
>hundred possible PL/n variations -- PL/I, PL/2 or PL/II,
>PL/3 or PL/III, etc. There was a PL360 written by Klaus Wirth
>and a PL440 (?) from Telefunken, but no others less than
>100. Apparently IBM copyrighted PL/S,
>since very little material on that language seems to
>have become available.
I believe IBM *trademarked* those names, they didn't copyright the
languages. They couldn't, since they didn't even exist.
Language names can definitely be trademarked -- IIRC, the Pentagon
trademarked Ada to prevent anyone from using this name to refer to their
implementation unless it had been certified (but I think they eventually
dropped this practice).
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
Christopher Browne
> On 27 Jan 2003 22:30:54 -0800, P.M. <p...@cpugrid.net> wrote:
>> I remember several years ago that there were attempts to enforce
>> copyright on programming languages. Does anyone know if this is still
>> the case? To complicate things, what about library API's (e.g. could
>> something like the Java or .NET class libraries be copyrighted,
>> restricting 3rd party implementations)?
>
> I don't believe it's possible to copyright a programming language.
> Can you give cite an example of a language that is so protected.
Actually, there's a bigger issue that lurks.
If the language is encumbered in such a way that people need special
licenses to use it, that means that /any/ use of it, of /any/ kind,
has giant dragons looming behind it.
If code written in FooPL may "belong to Foo Inc" due to the choice of
language, what organization would be so extravagantly idiotic as to
put their intellectual property ("their code") thus in jeapordy?
A language that /was/ thus encumbered will cause all the lawyers to
run off screaming "Leper! Leper!" and anyone proposing the use of
such a language would get ridiculed out whatever organization they
might be in.
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@ntlug.org")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/lisp.html
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home".
-- Ken Olson, Pres. and founder of Digital Equipment Corp. 1977
Christopher Browne
> It is my understanding that IBM copyrighted the first
> hundred possible PL/n variations -- PL/I, PL/2 or PL/II,
> PL/3 or PL/III, etc. There was a PL360 written by Klaus Wirth
> and a PL440 (?) from Telefunken, but no others less than
> 100. Apparently IBM copyrighted PL/S,
> since very little material on that language seems to
> have become available.
Somehow I suspect that you may not know the difference between the
legal notions of "copyright," which has to do with the rights
surrounding making copies of things, and "trademark," which has to do
with the rights surrounding the use of _names_.
Copyright and trademark are not at all the same thing.
The /name/ of a language is something that would be encumbered by
trademark, not copyright.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/sap.html
"Tooltips are the proof that icons don't work."
-- Stefaan A. Eeckels
Liz
"Christopher Browne" <cbbr...@acm.org> wrote in message
news:b17gam$10c4h6$2...@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de...
> > It is my understanding that IBM copyrighted the first
> > hundred possible PL/n variations -- PL/I, PL/2 or PL/II,
> > PL/3 or PL/III, etc. There was a PL360 written by Klaus Wirth
> > and a PL440 (?) from Telefunken, but no others less than
> > 100. Apparently IBM copyrighted PL/S,
> > since very little material on that language seems to
> > have become available.
>
> Somehow I suspect that you may not know the difference between the
> legal notions of "copyright," which has to do with the rights
> surrounding making copies of things, and "trademark," which has to do
> with the rights surrounding the use of _names_.
>
> Copyright and trademark are not at all the same thing.
I don't think he mentioned or alluded to trademark protection .. IBM almost
certainly did register its source code with the Copyright office .. which is
not the same as saying that they had legally perfected rights in the various
languages ... I believe the state of the law is that you cannot appropriate
keywords, operator symbols, data structures, logical structures and the like
.. but that does not mean that you can rip someone's compiler source
But I don't think copyright has anything to do with why there is
[apparently] "very little material on" PL/x ...
P.M.
> On 28 Jan 2003 04:10:37 -0800, P.M. <p...@cpugrid.net> wrote:
> > Isaac <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message news:<slrnb3caf...@latveria.castledoom.org>...
...
> The copyright covers lists of operators and the written specification.
That's interesting. I wonder if this covers operators such as + * / !
etc.
And Wolfram's copyright does seem too extensive. A strict
interpreation of their claim would cover elements of mathematics such
as cos, tan, etc since they are part of the Mathematica language.
Isaac
> ... I believe the state of the law is that you cannot appropriate
> keywords, operator symbols, data structures, logical structures and the like
> .. but that does not mean that you can rip someone's compiler source
>
I'm a little confused here. Did you mean to say "you cannot protect
keywords, operator symbols..."
Otherwise the sentence construction doesn't make sense.
Isaac
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
No, appropriate can be a verb, too. Look it up.
-Greg
Isaac
I know it can be a verb, but it didn't seem to make sense to say
that although you cannot appropriate keywords, you still cannot
rip off someone's compiler code. It made more sense to say that although
you keywords are unprotectable, you cannot rip off compiler source
code.
The sentence seemed to set up a you can do this but not that, but instead
stated a you cannot do this, but you cannot do that.
Isaac
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
:> In comp.lang.misc Isaac <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
:>: On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 05:48:34 GMT, Liz <lizs...@swbell.net> wrote:
:>:> ... I believe the state of the law is that you cannot appropriate
:>:> keywords, operator symbols, data structures, logical structures and the like
:>:> .. but that does not mean that you can rip someone's compiler source
: it didn't seem to make sense to say that although you cannot appropriate
: keywords, you still cannot rip off someone's compiler code. It made
: more sense to say that although you keywords are unprotectable, you
: cannot rip off compiler source code.
The only difference between "keywords are unprotectable" and
"you cannot appropriate keywords" is that "appropriate" gives
a more accurate description of what one is doing when one tries
to apply copyright restrictions to keywords.
Unless of course you meant "protection" as in "protection racket".
The confusion is because the same kind of language is being used to
refer both to taking something away from the public domain and to
taking something back that has previously been taken from it.
-Greg
Isaac
> In comp.lang.misc Isaac <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
>: On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:30:37 +0000 (UTC), gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
>: <gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>:> In comp.lang.misc Isaac <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
>:>: On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 05:48:34 GMT, Liz <lizs...@swbell.net> wrote:
>:>:> ... I believe the state of the law is that you cannot appropriate
>:>:> keywords, operator symbols, data structures, logical structures and the like
>:>:> .. but that does not mean that you can rip someone's compiler source
>
>: it didn't seem to make sense to say that although you cannot appropriate
>: keywords, you still cannot rip off someone's compiler code. It made
>: more sense to say that although you keywords are unprotectable, you
>: cannot rip off compiler source code.
>
> The only difference between "keywords are unprotectable" and
> "you cannot appropriate keywords" is that "appropriate" gives
> a more accurate description of what one is doing when one tries
> to apply copyright restrictions to keywords.
That's correct. But the use of the conjunction "but" implies that
you are about to express a contrary idea and not that you
are about to express the same idea again.
I think Liz meant to suggest that keywords are not protectable.
Isaac
Jonathan Thornburg
P.M. <p...@cpugrid.net> wrote:
>And Wolfram's copyright does seem too extensive. A strict
>interpreation of their claim would cover elements of mathematics such
>as cos, tan, etc since they are part of the Mathematica language.
Yup. Wolfram has in fact had their lawyers send threatening letters
to Richard Fateman concerning his Lisp program which used names like
Sin, Cos, Tan, in an attempt to be similar to Mathematica. Here's a
sample letter:
From: fat...@peoplesparc.Berkeley.EDU (Richard Fateman)
Newsgroups: sci.math.symbolic
Subject: Who owns Sin, Tan, Expand?
Summary: Is Mock Mathematica(r) Illegal?
Message-ID: <1991Oct2.0...@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 2 Oct 91 00:03:43 GMT
Sender: use...@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 90
From my mail, quoted without comment.
(I tried to send this once before, but I think the mailer was broken
somehow.)
-- Richard Fateman
.........
(letterhead of
Brown & Bain
A partnership associated with a law
corporation
600 Hansen Way
Palo Alto California 94306
Telephone (415) 856 9411)
September 20, 1991
Wolfram Research, Inc.
Mathematica (r)
Dear Dr. Fateman:
Brown & Bain represents Wolfram Research, Inc. in the pro-
tection of its intellectual property rights. Wolfram Research
is concerned that you are violating those rights in the Common
Lisp program you have identified as "L-Mathematica."
Accepting the old saw that imitation is the sincerest form
of flattery, especially from one who has been a highly vocal
critic in the past, your imitation of Masthematica(r) appears to
have gone beyond flattery into more perilous areas of infringe-
ment and misappropriation. We note in particular the following
problems:
(1) The name of the program, L-Mathematica, infringes
on the "Mathematica" registered trademark. The
name suggests an association with the Mathematica
system and appropriates the good will that has
been developed by Wolfram Research in the
Mathematica program. (Although the treatment
of the term "Mathematica" is inconsistent
throughout the Common Lisp program, it appears
that you are claiming a trademark in the term
"Mock Mathematica" and some other interpolations.
If this is incorrect, I would appreciate your
informing me that we are in error.)
(2) In addition to the confusing use of the trademark
"Mathematica", you have made a wholesale adoption of
the Mathematica command names in an attempt to make the
Common Lisp program look as much like the Mathematica
system as possible. These names were selected by
Wolfram Research from a wide range of possiblities and
their compilation is the original creation of Wolfram
Research. The command names, among other things, are
protected by copyright: your use of them infringes the
copyright. (Apparently you claim a copyright in the
Common Lisp program. However, in some instances the
copyright holder is identified as Richard J. Fateman,
either individually or in connection with Pak W. Yan [sic]
and other individuals, while in other instances the
copyright holder is identified as U.C. Berkeley.
Again I would appreciate your clarifying the status
of the copyright claimed.)
It might be useful to discuss the steps that can be taken to
assure both that your program remains available for use by anyone
who wishes to use it, and at the same time that the intellectual
rights that Wolfram Research has in Mathematica(r) are protected.
Absent such discussions, however, Wolfram Research will have to
take appropriate action to protect its intellectual property.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Lois W. Abraham
--
Richard J. Fateman
fat...@cs.berkeley.edu 510 642-1879
--
Richard J. Fateman
fat...@cs.berkeley.edu 510 642-1879
--
-- Jonathan Thornburg <jth...@aei.mpg.de>
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut),
Golm, Germany http://www.aei.mpg.de/~jthorn/home.html
"The first strike in the American Colonies was in 1776 in Philadelphia,
when [...] carpenters demanded a 72-hour week." -- Anatole Beck
Barry Margolin
P.M. <p...@cpugrid.net> wrote:
>Isaac <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message
>news:<slrnb3du6...@latveria.castledoom.org>...
>> On 28 Jan 2003 04:10:37 -0800, P.M. <p...@cpugrid.net> wrote:
>> > Isaac <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message
>news:<slrnb3caf...@latveria.castledoom.org>...
>
>...
>
>> The copyright covers lists of operators and the written specification.
>
>That's interesting. I wonder if this covers operators such as + * / !
>etc.
He's presumably not claiming the individual operators, but the list as a
whole. The use of "+" for addition is clearly not original to him, but he
created the collection of all the operators that his language provides.
Liz
> >
> > The only difference between "keywords are unprotectable" and
> > "you cannot appropriate keywords" is that "appropriate" gives
> > a more accurate description of what one is doing when one tries
> > to apply copyright restrictions to keywords.
>
> That's correct. But the use of the conjunction "but" implies that
> you are about to express a contrary idea and not that you
> are about to express the same idea again.
>
> I think Liz meant to suggest that keywords are not protectable.
yes, I think I was reasonably clear in saying :
"I believe the state of the law is that you cannot appropriate keywords,
operator symbols, data structures, logical structures and the like"
now, having noted that key elements of computer languages are NOT
protectable, and NOT wanting to give the impression that it's open season on
all expression connected with the creation of such languages, I said :
"BUT [emphasis added now] that does not mean that you can rip someone's
compiler source" (because that IS protected)
--------
Greg: thank you for clarifying some of my expression
Barry Margolin
Liz <lizs...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>"Christopher Browne" <cbbr...@acm.org> wrote in message
>news:b17gam$10c4h6$2...@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de...
>> After a long battle with technology,sli...@jcs.upb.pitt.edu (John
>Slimick), an earthling, wrote:
>
>> > It is my understanding that IBM copyrighted the first
>> > hundred possible PL/n variations -- PL/I, PL/2 or PL/II,
>> > PL/3 or PL/III, etc. There was a PL360 written by Klaus Wirth
>> > and a PL440 (?) from Telefunken, but no others less than
>> > 100. Apparently IBM copyrighted PL/S,
>> > since very little material on that language seems to
>> > have become available.
>>
>> Somehow I suspect that you may not know the difference between the
>> legal notions of "copyright," which has to do with the rights
>> surrounding making copies of things, and "trademark," which has to do
>> with the rights surrounding the use of _names_.
>>
>> Copyright and trademark are not at all the same thing.
>
>I don't think he mentioned or alluded to trademark protection .. IBM almost
>certainly did register its source code with the Copyright office
He talked about IBM protecting lots of PL/<n> variations. Most of them
didn't correspond to actual languages (and in fact were never actually
used). How could they have registered the source code for programs that
didn't exist?
Liz
"Barry Margolin" <bar...@genuity.net> wrote in message
news:L2TZ9.14$m94...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> >>
> >> Somehow I suspect that you may not know the difference between the
> >> legal notions of "copyright," which has to do with the rights
> >> surrounding making copies of things, and "trademark," which has to do
> >> with the rights surrounding the use of _names_.
> >>
> >> Copyright and trademark are not at all the same thing.
> >
> >I don't think he mentioned or alluded to trademark protection .. IBM
almost
> >certainly did register its source code with the Copyright office
>
> He talked about IBM protecting lots of PL/<n> variations. Most of them
> didn't correspond to actual languages (and in fact were never actually
> used). How could they have registered the source code for programs that
> didn't exist?
Barry, I don't give a damn what IBM actually did .. it's the principles here
that are of interest
Arthur J. O'Dwyer
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au wrote:
>
> In comp.lang.misc Isaac <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
> : On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 06:30:37 +0000 (UTC), gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
> : <gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
> :> In comp.lang.misc Isaac <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
> :>: On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 05:48:34 GMT, Liz <lizs...@swbell.net> wrote:
> :>:> ... I believe the state of the law is that you cannot appropriate
> :>:> keywords, operator symbols, data structures, logical structures and the like
> :>:> .. but that does not mean that you can rip someone's compiler source
>
> : it didn't seem to make sense to say that although you cannot appropriate
> : keywords, you still cannot rip off someone's compiler code. It made
> : more sense to say that although you keywords are unprotectable, you
> : cannot rip off compiler source code.
> The confusion is because the same kind of language is being used to
> refer both to taking something away from the public domain and to
> taking something back that has previously been taken from it.
Hmm. Poor word choice, then. "Appropriate" as a verb means "to take
away" or (roughly) "to steal", which is the opposite of "to protect",
and an approximate _synonym_ of "to rip off".
Liz probably meant: You cannot _legally protect_ keywords, et cetera,
but you can _legally protect_ compiler source code.
-Arthur
Barry Margolin
But you were responding to a post that specifically talked about what IBM
did regarding PL/2, PL/3, PL/4, etc. He claimed that the copyrighted it,
and we corrected him to say that all they did was trademark the name,
because names cannot be copyrighted, and the code didn't exist to be
copyrighted.
The fact that they also copyrighted their compiler for PL/I is beside the
point.
Liz
> >
> >Barry, I don't give a damn what IBM actually did .. it's the principles
here
> >that are of interest
>
> But you were responding to a post that specifically talked about what IBM
> did regarding PL/2, PL/3, PL/4, etc. He claimed that the copyrighted it,
> and we corrected him to say that all they did was trademark the name,
> because names cannot be copyrighted, and the code didn't exist to be
> copyrighted.
>
> The fact that they also copyrighted their compiler for PL/I is beside the
> point.
Have you read the SUBJECT line ? YOU attempted to divert the discussion
away from whether computer languages can be protected by copyright to a
collateral discussion about trademarks; that's NOT what we're talking about
Here is the ORIGINAL POST:
<< I remember several years ago that there were attempts to enforce
copyright on programming languages. Does anyone know if this is still
the case? To complicate things, what about library API's (e.g. could
something like the Java or .NET class libraries be copyrighted,
restricting 3rd party implementations)?
If a vendor created a specific language and claimed copyright on it,
would a 3rd party be restricted from implementing a parser, compiler
or compatible library for that language?
Thanks,
Peter >>