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 >>
Liz
"Arthur J. O'Dwyer" <a...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44L-027.030...@unix49.andrew.cmu.edu...
> > : 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.
Liz meant exactly what Liz said and has explained it thoroughly
Barry Margolin
Liz <lizs...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>"Barry Margolin" <bar...@genuity.net> wrote in message
>news:2fVZ9.23$m94...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
>
>> >
>> >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
Yes, I've read the subject line. However, this subthread is not about what
the OP wrote.
I didn't divert the discussion, someone else did. He wrote that IBM had
copyrighted all the PL/<n> variants. Someone else responded that they
hadn't copyrighted them, they just trademarked the names, and that poster
was confusing the two types of protection. Then you responded to that,
saying that they *had* registered the source code.
Your message may have been apropos to the original post, but it was not
relevant to the message that you were specifically replying to.
Isaac
wrote:
>
>
> 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".
I guess you cannot steal something that cannot be protected under law.
So you do not appropriate (or misappropriate) keywords when you copy
them.
Seems a rather circuitous way of indicating that keywords are not
protectable, but ...
Isaac
Christopher Browne
.. And the "principle" is that what IBM was registering was
/trademarks/ on the /names/ of languages.
There certainly /is/ a vital principle there, namely that trademark is
not the same thing as copyright.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "ac.notelrac.teneerf@" "454aa"))
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linuxdistributions.html
Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall!
All the king's horses,
And all the king's men,
Had scrambled eggs for breakfast again!
Shayne Wissler
> > 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".
>
> I guess you cannot steal something that cannot be protected under law.
> So you do not appropriate (or misappropriate) keywords when you copy
> them.
Moral concepts are not defined by the government. They are in fact more
fundamental and prior to the government. Otherwise there would be no such
thing as claiming that one government was relatively good (America's) and
one was evil (Nazi Germany's).
Stealing is, quite simply, taking the unearned. It means taking what someone
else produced and using it as your own.
I know--this is an extremely difficult concept for some programmers to
grasp, because they just want that code so badly, it's so easy to steal, and
if you block out your moral faculty just a little bit, you can get away with
it with yourself by claiming "but it's not hurting anyone!"
Should someone be able to create a language and have it be protected as
intellectual property? Absolutely. It is obviously a form of intellectual
property--it would not exist if it were not for the particular individuals
involved in creating it. A language and its semantics is a very particular,
unique creation, not unlike a work of art in this regard. Therefore it seems
that copyright is the appropriate form in which the government should uphold
the property rights.
Does the US government happen to protect intellectual property rights when
it comes to languages? I'm not sure.
Shayne Wissler
Liz
> > Barry, I don't give a damn what IBM actually did .. it's the
> > principles here that are of interest
>
> .. And the "principle" is that what IBM was registering was
> /trademarks/ on the /names/ of languages.
>
> There certainly /is/ a vital principle there, namely that trademark is
> not the same thing as copyright.
I don't recall arguing that they were the same .. I don't know what the
confusion is over trademark/copyright in this thread; Mr. Durcholz
commented, in passing, that "[Sun] 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 it .. nobody's pushing this issue except for a couple of posters who
want to accuse others of being confused.
Ben Pfaff
> Should someone be able to create a language and have it be protected as
> intellectual property? Absolutely. It is obviously a form of intellectual
> property--it would not exist if it were not for the particular individuals
> involved in creating it. [..]
Now you just need to show that allowing an "intellectual
property" interest in a created language is of benefit to
society. Just because someone creates something new and unique
does not automatically mean that he or she should have exclusive
proprietary rights to it, regardless of the amount of effort put
into it.
Shayne Wissler
"Ben Pfaff" <b...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:87d6mfd...@pfaff.Stanford.EDU...
Well, if you want to act like a barbaric caveman and take things just
because you want them (with the crude rationalization "but it benefits
socieity") that's your choice. Just as the Germans chose to gas the Jews
(and as Hitler said, because *that* benefited his society).
Shayne Wissler
Paul Dietz
> Well, if you want to act like a barbaric caveman and take things just
> because you want them (with the crude rationalization "but it benefits
> socieity") that's your choice. Just as the Germans chose to gas the Jews
> (and as Hitler said, because *that* benefited his society).
Godwin!
Paul
Mike Smith
>
> > Should someone be able to create a language and have it be protected as
> > intellectual property? Absolutely. It is obviously a form of
intellectual
> > property--it would not exist if it were not for the particular
individuals
> > involved in creating it. [..]
>
> Now you just need to show that allowing an "intellectual
> property" interest in a created language is of benefit to
> society.
Why? A porno movie can be copyrighted. A music video can be copyrighted.
What "benefit to society" do they bring?
> Just because someone creates something new and unique
> does not automatically mean that he or she should have exclusive
> proprietary rights to it, regardless of the amount of effort put
> into it.
Sure it does. *Particularly* if it is indeed new and unique. And
particularly if a significant amount of effort went into it.
--
Mike Smith
Shayne Wissler
There is no such rule of reasoning or debate that says you shouldn't refer
to certain facts of history. Godwin's "law" is just a lame attempt by moral
cowards to escape the responsibility of thinking about the principles
involved, as principles are best demonstrated by pointing to extreme
instances.
Shayne Wissler
Barry Margolin
Mike Smith <mike.UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
>"Ben Pfaff" <b...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
>news:87d6mfd...@pfaff.Stanford.EDU...
>> property" interest in a created language is of benefit to
>> society.
>
>Why? A porno movie can be copyrighted. A music video can be copyrighted.
>What "benefit to society" do they bring?
People enjoy watching them. Isn't making people happy a benefit to
society? What other benefit does most art provide?
As for allowing IP rights to languages, the benefit is that it encourages
people to create and distribute new programming languages, just as allowing
IP rights to literature encourages writing and publishing.
>> Just because someone creates something new and unique
>> does not automatically mean that he or she should have exclusive
>> proprietary rights to it, regardless of the amount of effort put
>> into it.
>
>Sure it does. *Particularly* if it is indeed new and unique. And
>particularly if a significant amount of effort went into it.
True. ISTM that if any form of IP protection should be applicable to
programming languages, it should be patent. A programming language is a
method of controlling a computer, and methods are one of the types of
things that may be patented.
Ben Pfaff
> "Ben Pfaff" <b...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
> news:87d6mfd...@pfaff.Stanford.EDU...
> > "Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > > Should someone be able to create a language and have it be protected as
> > > intellectual property? Absolutely. It is obviously a form of
> intellectual
> > > property--it would not exist if it were not for the particular
> individuals
> > > involved in creating it. [..]
> >
> > Now you just need to show that allowing an "intellectual
> > property" interest in a created language is of benefit to
> > society.
>
> Why? A porno movie can be copyrighted. A music video can be copyrighted.
> What "benefit to society" do they bring?
The general idea behind copyright on movies (as with books, etc.)
is that by giving (limited) exclusive rights to their producers
for limited times, we will get more movies, which is considered
in general a benefit to society. There is no distinction made
among types of movies.
You can consider whether the same argument applies to computer
languages. Does society benefit from a profusion of computer
languages? This is a difficult question--compatibility is at
least as important as diversity in languages. Languages are
primarily functional, not primarily artistic. Will designers of
languages benefit? Maybe. Will users benefit from having to
license their languages (not just implementations of languages)?
I doubt it.
In short, I don't see that there is a good parallel between the
situations for movies and for languages.
Ben Pfaff
> In article <v3glp7b...@news.supernews.com>,
> Mike Smith <mike.UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
> >"Ben Pfaff" <b...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
> >news:87d6mfd...@pfaff.Stanford.EDU...
> >> Now you just need to show that allowing an "intellectual
> >> property" interest in a created language is of benefit to
> >> society.
> >
> >Why? A porno movie can be copyrighted. A music video can be copyrighted.
> >What "benefit to society" do they bring?
>
> People enjoy watching them. Isn't making people happy a benefit to
> society? What other benefit does most art provide?
>
> As for allowing IP rights to languages, the benefit is that it encourages
> people to create and distribute new programming languages, just as allowing
> IP rights to literature encourages writing and publishing.
People create and distribute new programming languages already.
There are many, many programming languages out there. Do you
think that adding proprietary rights to languages would encourage
people to create more of them? Don't you think that adding such
rights would discourage people from creating software that
implements languages? If it were illegal to write a C compiler
(or any C program at all) without a license from K&R, then
software would be a helluva lot different from the way it is
today.
--
Peter Seebach on managing engineers:
"It's like herding cats, only most of the engineers are already
sick of laser pointers."
Barry Margolin
Liz <lizs...@swbell.net> wrote:
>I don't recall arguing that they were the same .. I don't know what the
>confusion is over trademark/copyright in this thread; Mr. Durcholz
>commented, in passing, that "[Sun] 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."
The message that started this tangent was
<slrnb3dr02....@jcs.upb.pitt.edu> by John Slimick, in which he
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.
--
Shayne Wissler
>> > Now you just need to show that allowing an "intellectual
>> > property" interest in a created language is of benefit to
>> > society.
>>
>> Why? A porno movie can be copyrighted. A music video can be
>> copyrighted. What "benefit to society" do they bring?
>
> The general idea behind copyright on movies (as with books, etc.)
> is that by giving (limited) exclusive rights to their producers
> for limited times, we will get more movies, which is considered
> in general a benefit to society. There is no distinction made
> among types of movies.
That is fantastically bizzare. It's like saying: "The general idea behind
making murder illegal is that by giving (limited) rights to an individual
to live, for limited times, we get more individuals which we can then
slaughter at will."
The idea behind copyrights is hinted to in the word: copy*RIGHTS*. Which are
derivative rights from those inalienable individual rights the founder's of
America identified: rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
The reason why you ought to refrain from stealing is the same reason why you
ought to refrain from murdering. No, it's not because that by murdering,
you undermine the "good of society." You ought to refrain because it's THAT
PERSON'S LIFE and he has a RIGHT to it, not you. Likewise, he has a right
to anything he produced using his life.
Shayne Wissler
Barry Margolin
Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The idea behind copyrights is hinted to in the word: copy*RIGHTS*. Which are
>derivative rights from those inalienable individual rights the founder's of
>America identified: rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Except that the Constitution specifically says that the reason Congress is
allowed to legislate IP rights is to promote progress in art and
technology, *not* because people have an inalienable right to the results
of their work.
>The reason why you ought to refrain from stealing is the same reason why you
>ought to refrain from murdering. No, it's not because that by murdering,
>you undermine the "good of society." You ought to refrain because it's THAT
>PERSON'S LIFE and he has a RIGHT to it, not you. Likewise, he has a right
>to anything he produced using his life.
These rights are considered so obvious that the Constitution didn't even
need to mention them explicitly. It was naturally assumed that Congress
would legislate punishments for personal violations like murder, stealing
tangible property, etc.
Intellectual property, on the other hand, was often not protected by law,
and there was not much common law precedent. At the time, authors,
inventors, etc. had little expectation that their work would be protected;
the framers had to put that clause into the Constitution explicitly to
authorize Congress to regulate it.
Shayne Wissler
> In article <WPZZ9.90509$AV4.3093@sccrnsc01>,
> Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>The idea behind copyrights is hinted to in the word: copy*RIGHTS*. Which
>>are derivative rights from those inalienable individual rights the
>>founder's of America identified: rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of
>>happiness.
>
> Except that the Constitution specifically says that the reason Congress is
> allowed to legislate IP rights is to promote progress in art and
> technology, *not* because people have an inalienable right to the results
> of their work.
You need to learn to distinguish ethics from politics. Whatever a particular
government happens to do is irrelevant to the question of whether it's
right or not.
Shayne Wissler
Barry Margolin
Ben Pfaff <b...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>People create and distribute new programming languages already.
>There are many, many programming languages out there. Do you
>think that adding proprietary rights to languages would encourage
>people to create more of them? Don't you think that adding such
>rights would discourage people from creating software that
>implements languages? If it were illegal to write a C compiler
>(or any C program at all) without a license from K&R, then
>software would be a helluva lot different from the way it is
>today.
People wrote literature before there were copyright laws, too.
And people do lots of things that require paying license fees, so you can't
claim that license fees would fundamentally stifle activity.
Without doing lots of economic and socialogical analysis, neither of which
I'm qualified in, I can't speculate whether IP rights would increase or
decrease the production of new languages. The general theory behind the
whole IP system is that giving people more control over the fruits of their
labor, including the ability to reap financial benefits, will encourage
them to perform that labor more.
Most programming languages have been designed out of necessity -- someone
needed a way to program their computer, and none of the available languages
fit their needs, so they designed a new one. It was just a step along the
way, not the end product itself. Perhaps if IP rights were available for
programming languages, people would create them for their own sake. This
might mean that the language you need already exists, so you wouldn't have
to waste time designing a new one before getting down to the real work you
wanted to do. Sure, you might have to pay a license fee, but it could be
much less than the effort necessary to do the work yourself (this is why
you buy anything rather than make it yourself, right?).
I'm not saying that this *will* happen -- see what I wrote above about my
lack of qualifications. I'm just making up a scenario that seems possible,
that lawmakers might consider when deciding whether such protection is
appropriate or not.
Barry Margolin
Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Barry Margolin wrote:
>
>> In article <WPZZ9.90509$AV4.3093@sccrnsc01>,
>> Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>The idea behind copyrights is hinted to in the word: copy*RIGHTS*. Which
>>>are derivative rights from those inalienable individual rights the
>>>founder's of America identified: rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of
>>>happiness.
>>
>> Except that the Constitution specifically says that the reason Congress is
>> allowed to legislate IP rights is to promote progress in art and
>> technology, *not* because people have an inalienable right to the results
>> of their work.
>
>You need to learn to distinguish ethics from politics. Whatever a particular
>government happens to do is irrelevant to the question of whether it's
>right or not.
Until that time, intellectual property was *not* generally considered a
right, by politicians or anyone else. Like I said, they had to put that
clause in the Constitution because such rights were not assumed. It was
not considered ethically wrong to copy other people's work. The framers
realized that it would be better for society if this were changed, so they
legislated IP rights into existence.
Ethics, of course, are often dependent on the particular society. Western
society has had IP legislation for several centuries now, and as a result
it's now considered natural. On the other hand, IP rights are not
considered normal in much of Asia -- it's pretty easy to understand why
communists would have a harder time with this (property rights in general
are less sacrosanct, so rights to intangibles are clearly tenuous).
It's entirely possible that IP rights are one of the reasons that the US,
one of the youngest nations in the world, rose so quickly to become a world
technology leader. I doubt it's the only reason, though.
Paul F. Dietz
> There is no such rule of reasoning or debate that says you shouldn't refer
> to certain facts of history. Godwin's "law" is just a lame attempt by moral
> cowards to escape the responsibility of thinking about the principles
> involved, as principles are best demonstrated by pointing to extreme
> instances.
Sorry, you lose. Have a nice day.
Paul
Shayne Wissler
> It's entirely possible that IP rights are one of the reasons that the US,
> one of the youngest nations in the world, rose so quickly to become a
world
> technology leader.
It is certainly a reason. A civilization that protects individual rights
will prosper; one that flouts them will starve. That is because the moral is
the practical, and visa versa--it is *moral* to respect the natural rights
of others.
That applies to all ethical principles. If people go around murdering and
pillaging from others, they can do no better than as good as savages do:
they have a meager existence, with an average life-span of around 30 years.
To be immoral--which includes violating the rights of others--is to pursue
death.
A change in degree--from murder to theft--only changes the rate at which a
civilization strangles itself.
It is certainly no coincidence that historically speaking, there was a
literal explosion in prosperity at about the time the Declaration of
Independence was signed.
Shayne Wissler
Isaac
>
>
> Should someone be able to create a language and have it be protected as
> intellectual property? Absolutely. It is obviously a form of intellectual
> property--it would not exist if it were not for the particular individuals
> involved in creating it. A language and its semantics is a very particular,
> unique creation, not unlike a work of art in this regard. Therefore it seems
> that copyright is the appropriate form in which the government should uphold
> the property rights.
There is a logical contradiction here. You appeal to moral rights as being
something independent from law, but then you try to shoe horn protection
of languages into a legal creation (copyright law) where it simply does not
fit.
Perhaps languages deserve to be a protected property. They are probably
protectable by patent. But I don't see a moral argument that they ought
to be protectable by copyright.
Isaac
Shayne Wissler
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 21:09:52 GMT, Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > Should someone be able to create a language and have it be protected as
> > intellectual property? Absolutely. It is obviously a form of
intellectual
> > property--it would not exist if it were not for the particular
individuals
> > involved in creating it. A language and its semantics is a very
particular,
> > unique creation, not unlike a work of art in this regard. Therefore it
seems
> > that copyright is the appropriate form in which the government should
uphold
> > the property rights.
>
> There is a logical contradiction here. You appeal to moral rights as
being
> something independent from law, but then you try to shoe horn protection
> of languages into a legal creation (copyright law) where it simply does
not
> fit.
You misunderstand. What is legally right is not independent of moral rights,
on the contrary, *proper* legal rights follow directly from moral rights.
The point is that what is moral is so regardless of what happens to be
legal.
Just as a proper legal system recognizes that it's wrong to steal someone's
property, a proper legal system protects someone's intellectual property.
There's no contradiction here.
> Perhaps languages deserve to be a protected property. They are probably
> protectable by patent. But I don't see a moral argument that they ought
> to be protectable by copyright.
Patents might apply to some of the ideas used within a given language, but
again, a language is a very particular arrangement of things. If I take
Smalltalk (which is not copyrighted) and change its syntax, I ought to be
able to copyright that new syntax. No one is going to get that syntax except
by copying my work, so they don't have a right to copy it unless I give it
to them.
Now, someone might have parts of their language that look similar to parts
of mine, just as when you write a book some of the sentences might be in
common with sentences in other books (one shouldn't be able to copyright
"Sin()").
I think we're getting close to complicated legal theory, something I don't
want to get into...
Shayne Wissler
Liz
> In article <ACXZ9.160954$TJ.2...@post-02.news.easynews.com>,
> Liz <lizs...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >I don't recall arguing that they were the same .. I don't know what the
> >confusion is over trademark/copyright in this thread; Mr. Durcholz
> >commented, in passing, that "[Sun] 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."
>
> The message that started this tangent was
> <slrnb3dr02....@jcs.upb.pitt.edu> by John Slimick, in which he
> 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.
and that's got what to do with trademark, Barry ?
P.M.
> In article <6db3f637.03012...@posting.google.com>,
> 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:
>
...
This bit looks particularly worrying:
"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."
I wonder how this would apply to language translators that map one
(high-level) language to another (high-level) language? That isn't
much different from interpretation or compilation that, in the above
case, transform Mathematica commands into Lisp byte codes.
Liz
>
> These rights are considered so obvious that the Constitution didn't even
> need to mention them explicitly. It was naturally assumed that Congress
> would legislate punishments for personal violations like murder, stealing
> tangible property, etc.
no, it was assumed the states would do so, as they did .. it is only
relatively recently that Congress has developed a penchant for the expansion
of federal criminal statutes ..
> Intellectual property, on the other hand, was often not protected by law,
> and there was not much common law precedent. At the time, authors,
> inventors, etc. had little expectation that their work would be protected;
> the framers had to put that clause into the Constitution explicitly to
> authorize Congress to regulate it.
true .. although there are other bases to be found; Congress doesn't need
much to act and the SCOTUS almost invariably finds them to be properly
authorized to have legislated on almost anything.
Mr. Wissler has a peculiarly broad, endlessly elastic, and maddeningly
inconsistent notion of the nature, scope and status of "natural rights"
Christopher Browne
It's a self-solving problem.
If someone decides that "their language" is an exclusive proprietary
thing, and that all use of it, as a result, "belongs to them," then
would you imagine that anyone else would use it?
If, because Kernighan and Ritchie had "thus encumbered the C
language," all C programs belonged to AT&T and/or K&R, then we would
find that that C was purely a curiosity, not used by /anyone/
anymore.
Some might think that a good thing :-), but those people should
consider what happens if their pet language was encumbered in such a
way.
In effect, if you try to assert "exclusive proprietary rights" to a
computer language, nobody's going to be interested in using it.
--
output = reverse("moc.enworbbc@" "enworbbc")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/nonrdbms.html
"What if you slept? And what if, in your sleep, you dreamed?
And what if, in your dream, you went to heaven and there
plucked a strange and beautiful flower? And what if, when
you awoke, you had the flower in your hand? Ah, what then?"
--Coleridge
Christopher Browne
What it's got to do with trademark is that someone talking about NAMES
of languages being treated as intellectual property is necessarily
talking about .... TRADEMARKS.
The only thing IBM would have been able to do with the "first hundred
PL/n variations" is to apply for /TRADEMARKS/ on these /NAMES/.
IBM would hold copyright on the /manual/ for PL/1. They would hold
copyright on the reference guide.
But the notion of holding copyright on the name "PL/1" (or PL/2,
PL/III, or such) is just silly. You don't hold copyright on the
/name/ of something.
--
output = reverse("ac.notelrac.teneerf@" "454aa")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/spiritual.html
The difference between a child and a hacker is the amount he flames
about his toys. -- Ed Schwalenberg
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
make the context as obvious as possible.
In comp.lang.misc Isaac <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
: On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:37:02 +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 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.
They are two different ideas. One is the idea that you cannot steal
keywords from the public domain by copyrighting them, the other is
that you cannot legally use compiler source once it has been stolen
from the public domain by someone else copyrighting it.
: I think Liz meant to suggest that keywords are not protectable.
Yes. That is what Liz meant, and that is exactly what Liz said.
Another, more accurate, word for "protecting" a keyword is
"appropriating". In other words, you are seizing the keyword by
force and preventing anyone else from using it.
-Greg
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
: 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
:> :>:> compiler source
:> 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".
The problem is the "rip off" part: Unlike copyright, copying
does _not_ involve taking something away from someone else,
so "rip off" is quite inaccurate. Perhaps "use" or "copy" instead.
-Greg
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
:> 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".
: I guess you cannot steal something that cannot be protected under law.
How do you figure that?
I guess you could take a purely legalistic interpretation of the
word "steal", but then copyright infringement doesn't fall under
the definition.
: So you do not appropriate (or misappropriate) keywords when you copy
: them.
Correct. Whereas you _do_ appropriate them when you "steal" others'
right to copy them by claiming a copyright.
: Seems a rather circuitous way of indicating that keywords are not
: protectable, but ...
I think "rip off" was a poor choice of words - it suggests that you
are "stealing" something when you are only copying it, thus creating
confusion with copyrighting something which really _does_ constitute
taking something away from someone.
However, I think you were the only person confused by the OP.
-Greg
Isaac
>
> Patents might apply to some of the ideas used within a given language, but
> again, a language is a very particular arrangement of things. If I take
I disagree with your characterization. A language is a particular
method of controlling a computer. A programming language is not an
arrangement of anything. A computer program is a particular arrangement
of language elements.
> Smalltalk (which is not copyrighted) and change its syntax, I ought to be
> able to copyright that new syntax. No one is going to get that syntax except
> by copying my work, so they don't have a right to copy it unless I give it
> to them.
You ought to be able? Where does the right to do so come from? Apparently
from some morality that's natural and obvious. That pretty much ends the
discussion. Should you also be able to copyright facts if you work hard to
discover them? Well you can't do that either.
Isaac
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
: "Isaac" <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message
: news:slrnb3gbvm...@latveria.castledoom.org...
:> I guess you cannot steal something that cannot be protected under law.
:> So you do not appropriate (or misappropriate) keywords when you copy
:> them.
: Stealing is, quite simply, taking the unearned.
Sounds reasonable.
: It means taking what someone else produced and using it as your own.
Not at all. I bet you didn't build your car from scratch, but if
someone takes it, it's still theft. It's a matter of ownership.
Someone has prevented you using something which you worked hard
to acquire.
: I know--this is an extremely difficult concept for some programmers to
: grasp, because they just want that code so badly, it's so easy to steal, and
: if you block out your moral faculty just a little bit, you can get away with
: it with yourself by claiming "but it's not hurting anyone!"
I don't follow you. It's quite easy to use code without preventing
someone else from using it.
: Should someone be able to create a language and have it be protected as
: intellectual property? Absolutely.
I disagree.
What is the benefit in preventing people from using the language?
: It is obviously a form of intellectual property -- it would not exist
: if it were not for the particular individuals involved in creating it.
How does that make it property??? Surely property is something that
not everyone can use at the same time?
: A language and its semantics is a very particular, unique creation,
: not unlike a work of art in this regard.
Rubbish. All languages and their semantics build on thousands of
prior languages (both natural and computer-oriented) and millenia
of mathematical research. No language is more than 1% unique, and
very few are the least bit unique at all.
Having said that, art is usually considered to be influenced by
existing art, as well as by nature, so I agree they are not unlike.
: Therefore it seems
OK, perhaps it seems that way to you, but perhaps if you explained
why, it might begin to seem that way to others as well.
: that copyright is the appropriate form in which
: the government should uphold the property rights.
How do property rights enter into this? There is no property here.
-Greg
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
: "Ben Pfaff" <b...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
: news:87d6mfd...@pfaff.Stanford.EDU...
:> Now you just need to show that allowing an "intellectual
:> property" interest in a created language is of benefit to
:> society. Just because someone creates something new and unique
:> does not automatically mean that he or she should have exclusive
:> proprietary rights to it, regardless of the amount of effort put
:> into it.
: Well, if you want to act like a barbaric caveman and take things just
: because you want them (with the crude rationalization "but it benefits
: socieity") that's your choice.
Hang on, are you changing opinions mid-thread? A couple of posts ago
you were in favour of taking away people's rights to use things!
-Greg
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
: "Ben Pfaff" <b...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
: news:87d6mfd...@pfaff.Stanford.EDU...
:> Now you just need to show that allowing an "intellectual
:> property" interest in a created language is of benefit to
:> society.
: What "benefit to society" do they bring?
You mean the movies, or the copyrights? The movies you'd have to judge
on a case-by-case basis, I guess, but it seems very unlikely indeed
that the copyrights on those movies do society and good at all.
:> Just because someone creates something new and unique
:> does not automatically mean that he or she should have exclusive
:> proprietary rights to it, regardless of the amount of effort put
:> into it.
: Sure it does. *Particularly* if it is indeed new and unique. And
: particularly if a significant amount of effort went into it.
Why? I would have thought the more new and unique and hard-won the
idea is, the _more_ our society benefits from everyone being able
to use it.
-Greg
Isaac
<gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
> In comp.lang.misc Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>: "Isaac" <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message
>: news:slrnb3gbvm...@latveria.castledoom.org...
>:> I guess you cannot steal something that cannot be protected under law.
>:> So you do not appropriate (or misappropriate) keywords when you copy
>:> them.
>: Stealing is, quite simply, taking the unearned.
>
> Sounds reasonable.
Have you earned your oxygen today?
Isaac
Shayne Wissler
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 02:15:38 GMT, Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Patents might apply to some of the ideas used within a given language,
but
> > again, a language is a very particular arrangement of things. If I take
>
> I disagree with your characterization. A language is a particular
> method of controlling a computer. A programming language is not an
> arrangement of anything. A computer program is a particular arrangement
> of language elements.
A language is not merely a method. It is a particular syntax and semantics,
chosen by particular individuals that designed it.
> > Smalltalk (which is not copyrighted) and change its syntax, I ought to
be
> > able to copyright that new syntax. No one is going to get that syntax
except
> > by copying my work, so they don't have a right to copy it unless I give
it
> > to them.
>
> You ought to be able? Where does the right to do so come from?
Apparently
> from some morality that's natural and obvious. That pretty much ends the
> discussion.
It's obvious to civilized people that you don't steal. It may not be obvious
to barbarians who merely pretend to be civilized.
> Should you also be able to copyright facts if you work hard to
> discover them? Well you can't do that either.
A language is a creation, it's not scientific facts. When you create
something, you have a right to it--even if barbarians want it.
Shayne Wissler
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
: The general idea behind copyright on movies (as with books, etc.)
: is that by giving (limited) exclusive rights to their producers
: for limited times, we will get more movies, which is considered
: in general a benefit to society.
That doesn't make any sense at all. If we prevent people from
watching the movie, then the overall benefit to society is
_decreased_ and the amount of money we are prepared to put
into movie making is also _decreased_. Less movies will be
made.
The trade-off that makes some people think that copyright
is worth it is that the movies we do get are (by-and-large)
the ones we want to see, instead of the ones people want
to create. That argument falls flat nowadays, since supply
of movies drives demand through mass-media advertising
anyway, and it becomes economically prudent for movie-makers
(at least the ones large enough to buy such advertising)
to acclimatise us to low quality movies.
The argument may hold better in other fields, but it is
still a trade-off, and that suggests that it is a flawed
model for remunerating movie-makers and the ilk. Examples
of systems vaunted as better methods of remuneration
include usage-tracking (think radio royalties), arts and
sciences grants, the Street Performer Protocol, patronage,
collective patronage, and many others.
: You can consider whether the same argument applies to computer
: languages. Does society benefit from a profusion of computer
: languages? This is a difficult question--compatibility is at
: least as important as diversity in languages. Languages are
: primarily functional, not primarily artistic.
Yes. So if a language is needed, it will probably be built,
_unless_ there are incompatibility issues to prevent it
happening. These incompatibility issues are invariably caused
by copyright. So copyright is without question preventing the
creation of languages that our society would benefit from,
decreasing the quality and usefulness of languages that are
created, and preventing people from using existing languages.
: Will designers of languages benefit? Maybe.
But they would benefit more with a system that didn't restrict
the use of their languages, because people would be prepared
to put more money into development efforts since they would
getting more back.
The exception to this is that, under the copyright system,
the most powerful companies can use their copyrights to
create incompatibilities that lock others out of the
market, hence they get a bigger slice of the smaller pie.
: Will users benefit from having to license their languages
: (not just implementations of languages)? I doubt it.
Of course not.
: In short, I don't see that there is a good parallel between the
: situations for movies and for languages.
Actually, I think you vastly overestimate the positive effect
of copyright on movie production.
-Greg
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
:> The general idea behind copyright on movies (as with books, etc.)
:> is that by giving (limited) exclusive rights to their producers
:> for limited times, we will get more movies, which is considered
:> in general a benefit to society. There is no distinction made
:> among types of movies.
: That is fantastically bizzare. It's like saying: "The general idea behind
: making murder illegal is that by giving (limited) rights to an individual
: to live, for limited times, we get more individuals which we can then
: slaughter at will."
OK, now _that's_ bizzare. If killing people was beneficial to the
people who did it, didn't harm the person being killed, and left
that person around to be killed by someone else, then you might
have an analogy. As it is, you just sound like a crazy person.
: The idea behind copyrights is hinted to in the word: copy*RIGHTS*. Which are
: derivative rights from those inalienable individual rights the founder's of
: America identified: rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Derivative? How? Why then are they listed as an explicit _exception_
to the right of free speech? Copyright is constitutionally framed
as an exception to the almost-but-not-quite inalienable right to
free speech. It is in no way derived from LL&PH.
: The reason why you ought to refrain from stealing is the same reason why you
: ought to refrain from murdering. No, it's not because that by murdering,
: you undermine the "good of society." You ought to refrain because it's THAT
: PERSON'S LIFE and he has a RIGHT to it, not you. Likewise, he has a right
: to anything he produced using his life.
So you shouldn't stop someone using an idea he came up with.
I would certainly agree with that. Now what makes it ethical
to stop someone using an idea that _you_ came up with?
What is the practical or ethical difference?
Now what if you both came up with it independently?
-Greg
Isaac
> jth...@aei.mpg.de (Jonathan Thornburg) wrote in message news:<b18g9d$10knlf$1...@fu-berlin.de>...
>> In article <6db3f637.03012...@posting.google.com>,
>> P.M. <p...@cpugrid.net> wrote:
>> >And Wolfram's copyright does seem too extensive. A strict
>> >interpreation of their claim would cover elements of mathematics such
>> >as cos, tan, etc since they are part of the Mathematica language.
>>
>> Yup. Wolfram has in fact had their lawyers send threatening letters
>> to Richard Fateman concerning his Lisp program which used names like
>> Sin, Cos, Tan, in an attempt to be similar to Mathematica. Here's a
>> sample letter:
>>
>
> ...
>
> This bit looks particularly worrying:
>
> "you have made a wholesale adoption of
> the Mathematica command names in an attempt to make the
> Common Lisp program look as much like the Mathematica
> system as possible. These names were selected by
> Wolfram Research from a wide range of possiblities and
> their compilation is the original creation of Wolfram
> Research. The command names, among other things, are
> protected by copyright: your use of them infringes the
> copyright."
On the other hand, when Borland copied the entire command structure
(menus, macro language, etc) from Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet, the Supreme Court
affirmed a decision that those things were an uncopyrightable
"method of operation" akin to buttons on a VCR.
Those things were copied to make Quattro Pro operate as much like
1-2-3 as possible.
Won't prevent a big company from threating and suing though.
Isaac
Isaac
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
: In article <9e_Z9.82473$VU6....@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>,
: It's entirely possible that IP rights are one of the reasons
: that the US, one of the youngest nations in the world, rose
: so quickly to become a world technology leader.
But that's patents, not copyright. Patents work on an entirely
different principle - that unless inventors are given a degree
of exclusivity (the right to charge reasonable license fees)
they will keep their ideas secret from others, impeding
technological progress. That seemed to be a good idea, and led
to accelerated progress in countries with such patent laws.
It breaks down, however, when you start granting patents on
things that could not be kept secret, either by the nature
of the invention (how do you keep a programming language
secret? Or an algorithm in software you are selling?) or
because the idea is obvious enough that someone else will
come up with it independently soon enough. Then patents
become a serious obstacle in the path of technological progress.
-Greg
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
: news:rT_Z9.50$m94...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
:> It's entirely possible that IP rights are one of the reasons
:> that the US, one of the youngest nations in the world, rose
:> so quickly to become a world technology leader.
: It is certainly a reason. A civilization that protects individual
: rights will prosper; one that flouts them will starve.
: That applies to all ethical principles.
I'm following you up to here, although I don't see how it
relates to what you seem to be replying to.
: A change in degree--from murder to theft--only changes thei
: rate at which a civilization strangles itself.
But this is "bizarre". :)
How is copying "theft"? If you said that preventing someone
from copying something by means of copyright was "theft", I
could understand what you mean, but copying? "Theft" refers
to taking something away from someone.
-Greg
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
: Mike Smith <mike.UNDER...@acm.DOT.org> wrote:
:>"Ben Pfaff" <b...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote in message
:>news:87d6mfd...@pfaff.Stanford.EDU...
:>> Now you just need to show that allowing an "intellectual
:>> property" interest in a created language is of benefit to
:>> society.
: As for allowing IP rights to languages, the benefit is that it encourages
: people to create and distribute new programming languages, just as allowing
: IP rights to literature encourages writing and publishing.
No, it doesn't, as I've explained in another post.
(Although I sent it after you wrote this)
It discourages the writing of programming languages/literature
in an attempt to make the languages/literature that _does_
get written match the demand for such things better.
In the realm of software, however, the side-effect of
incompatibility means that it doesn't achieve this goal either.
: ISTM that if any form of IP protection should be applicable to
: programming languages, it should be patent. A programming language is a
: method of controlling a computer, and methods are one of the types of
: things that may be patented.
But a patent is meant to be an incentive for an inventor not
to keep his invention a secret from the world. How can you
keep a language a secret, unless only you use it?
-Greg
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
: Ben Pfaff <b...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
:>There are many, many programming languages out there. Do you
:>think that adding proprietary rights to languages would encourage
:>people to create more of them? Don't you think that adding such
:>rights would discourage people from creating software that
:>implements languages?
: Without doing lots of economic and socialogical analysis, neither of which
: I'm qualified in, I can't speculate whether IP rights would increase or
: decrease the production of new languages.
A tiny bit of economic analysis will tell you that they would
decrease production: by preventing people using languages, you
reduce the overall good that the languages do the populace, so
we are prepared to spend less money on producing such languages.
Less demand leads to less production.
: The general theory behind the whole IP system is that giving
: people more control over the fruits of their labor, including
: the ability to reap financial benefits, will encourage them
: to perform that labor more.
I'm not sure you can quite generalise "IP" like that:
The general theory behind Trademarks is that people
can be sure of who produced a certain good or service,
and so get an idea of quality before they decide how
much to pay for it.
The general theory behind Patents is that people
can tell the world about their great new idea
without losing their competitive advantage.
The general theory behind Copyrights is that people
are encouraged to produce works that other people
think are useful enough to pay money for, rather
than just what they wish to produce. (since the
creation of a copiable good can often benefit more
than just the initial creator)
: Most programming languages have been designed out of necessity -- someone
: needed a way to program their computer, and none of the available languages
: fit their needs, so they designed a new one. It was just a step along the
: way, not the end product itself.
: Perhaps if IP rights were available for programming languages, people
: would create them for their own sake.
IP rights would only encourage someone to create a language if
there was a demand for it, so I don't see how things would change.
The only difference is that it helps share the cost of creation
amongst all the people that will use it, but in the computing
sphere that has traditionally happened anyway.
-Greg
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
: news:slrnb3h18u...@latveria.castledoom.org...
:> There is a logical contradiction here. You appeal to moral rights as
:> being something independent from law, but then you try to shoe horn
:> protection of languages into a legal creation (copyright law) where it
:> simply does not fit.
: You misunderstand. What is legally right is not independent of moral rights,
Read it carefully. He said "you say moral rights are not dependent
on legal rights". You answered "I say legal rights are dependent
on moral rights".
: on the contrary, *proper* legal rights follow directly from moral rights.
: The point is that what is moral is so regardless of what happens to be
: legal.
: Just as a proper legal system recognizes that it's wrong to steal someone's
: property, a proper legal system protects someone's intellectual property.
: There's no contradiction here.
The contradiction is that the whole concept of "intellectual
property" is created by the legal system. So you are saying that
in a legal system that follows directly from moral rights must
protect a certain right that is purely a product of the legal
system itself, and nothing to do with any moral right.
So you are creating a moral right with regard to what happens to
be legal. That's exactly what you claied not to do.
-Greg
Shayne Wissler
<gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au> wrote in message news:b1a9c2$157$4...@enyo.uwa.edu.au...
> : I know--this is an extremely difficult concept for some programmers to
> : grasp, because they just want that code so badly, it's so easy to steal,
and
> : if you block out your moral faculty just a little bit, you can get away
with
> : it with yourself by claiming "but it's not hurting anyone!"
>
> I don't follow you. It's quite easy to use code without preventing
> someone else from using it.
The basic issue is: did they give you permission to use their creation or
not?
Shayne Wissler
Shayne Wissler
<gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au> wrote in message news:b1a9kf$157$5...@enyo.uwa.edu.au...
No one has a right to "use things." I don't have a right to come over to
your house and "use things".
Shayne Wissler
<gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au> wrote in message news:b1adf9$37p$2...@enyo.uwa.edu.au...
> In comp.lang.misc Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : Ben Pfaff wrote:
> :> The general idea behind copyright on movies (as with books, etc.)
> :> is that by giving (limited) exclusive rights to their producers
> :> for limited times, we will get more movies, which is considered
> :> in general a benefit to society. There is no distinction made
> :> among types of movies.
>
> : That is fantastically bizzare. It's like saying: "The general idea
behind
> : making murder illegal is that by giving (limited) rights to an
individual
> : to live, for limited times, we get more individuals which we can then
> : slaughter at will."
>
> OK, now _that's_ bizzare. If killing people was beneficial to the
> people who did it, didn't harm the person being killed, and left
> that person around to be killed by someone else, then you might
> have an analogy. As it is, you just sound like a crazy person.
So--stealing Microsoft's source doesn't hurt Microsoft? You're the one with
the bizzare views.
> : The idea behind copyrights is hinted to in the word: copy*RIGHTS*. Which
are
> : derivative rights from those inalienable individual rights the founder's
of
> : America identified: rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
>
> Derivative? How? Why then are they listed as an explicit _exception_
> to the right of free speech? Copyright is constitutionally framed
> as an exception to the almost-but-not-quite inalienable right to
> free speech. It is in no way derived from LL&PH.
A right to life means a right to dispose of your creations as you see
fit--so long as you don't interfere with the rights of others to do the
same.
> : The reason why you ought to refrain from stealing is the same reason why
you
> : ought to refrain from murdering. No, it's not because that by murdering,
> : you undermine the "good of society." You ought to refrain because it's
THAT
> : PERSON'S LIFE and he has a RIGHT to it, not you. Likewise, he has a
right
> : to anything he produced using his life.
>
> So you shouldn't stop someone using an idea he came up with.
> I would certainly agree with that. Now what makes it ethical
> to stop someone using an idea that _you_ came up with?
I'm not talking about ideas as such, so this is irrelevant. A language is
not merely an "idea". It's a creation. It's based on ideas, and assuming
they weren't patented or proprietary, everyone would be free to use them.
But sitting down like a monkey and copying the syntax and semantics exactly
(like a lot of GNU software) would be unethical if the language was
copyrighted.
Shayne Wissler
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
: "Isaac" <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message
: news:slrnb3h9ub...@latveria.castledoom.org...
:> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 02:15:38 GMT, Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com>
: wrote:
:> > <if I take> Smalltalk (which is not copyrighted) and change its
:> > syntax, I ought to be able to copyright that new syntax.
:> You ought to be able? Where does the right to do so come from?
: It's obvious to civilized people that you don't steal.
It's very hard to try to have a rational conversation with you
when you keep changing your opinion mid-thread.
I take it you now think it is wrong to take away (steal) someone's
right to use a language? (by claiming copyright, for example)
Only one post previously, you said you _should_ be able to do so.
:> Should you also be able to copyright facts if you work hard to
:> discover them? Well you can't do that either.
: A language is a creation, it's not scientific facts. When you create
: something, you have a right to it--even if barbarians want it.
I don't think anyone has ever suggesting preventing people
from using a language they have created. I guess it comes
close when someone sells their copyright to something, but
that is their own decision, not the barbarians'. :)
-Greg
Shayne Wissler
<gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au> wrote in message news:b1afkd$37p$7...@enyo.uwa.edu.au...
> The contradiction is that the whole concept of "intellectual
> property" is created by the legal system.
That's false.
> So you are creating a moral right with regard to what happens to
> be legal. That's exactly what you claied not to do.
Again, you misunderstand. Intellectual property rights are not merely legal
creations. They follow from natural rights. The are *recognized* by the law,
not created by it.
Shayne Wissler
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
I think he means that the person taking it away from someone
hasn't earned it. The question is whether I have earned _your_
oxygen, and whether I have a right to take it from you.
-Greg
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
:> Hang on, are you changing opinions mid-thread? A couple of posts ago
:> you were in favour of taking away people's rights to use things!
: No one has a right to "use things." I don't have a right to come over to
: your house and "use things".
Only because it prevents me from using them. If I were dead, why
shouldn't you come over and use my things? So you don't have the
right to come over and stop me using my things. Why should you
have the right to come over to my house and stop me using _my_
copy of a language you wrote?
-Greg
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
No. How can that possibly hurt Microsoft?
It hurts them relative to using-it-and-paying-Microsoft-money,
but it doesn't hurt them at all relative to not using it.
:> : The idea behind copyrights is hinted to in the word: copy*RIGHTS*.
:> : Which are derivative rights from those inalienable individual
:> : rights the founder's of America identified: rights to life,
:> : liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
:> Derivative? How?
: A right to life means a right to dispose of your creations as you see
: fit--so long as you don't interfere with the rights of others to do the
: same.
Why doesn't copyright fall under the category of "interfering with
others' rights to dispose of their creations as they see fit" if
they happen to have created a copy of you language?
:> : Likewise, he has a right to anything he produced using his life.
So you shouldn't stop someone using an creation he created up with.
So if someone creates a copy, what makes it ethical to stop them
from using the thing they created?
: But sitting down like a monkey and copying the syntax and semantics exactly
: (like a lot of GNU software) would be unethical if the language was
: copyrighted.
Once again, you are confusing "unethical" with "illegal".
-Greg
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
: They follow from natural rights.
You are probably the only person on the planet who thinks so.
Do you have any reasoning behind your bizarre and unusual stance?
If Prometheus the caveman works out how to rub two sticks
together to create fire, and cooks his food, then his
neighbour Ugg smells it, and it smells mighty good, and
so Ugg gets his own two sticks and cooks his own food,
does Prometheus have a right to stomp Ugg's fire out?
-Greg
gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
I don't think you understand: I am not using their copy of the code,
I am using my own copy of it. They probably don't even know I am
doing it.
How does this prevent them from using their copy of the code,
or in any other way harm them?
-Greg
Liz
"Shayne Wissler" <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0w3_9.19542$to3....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> Again, you misunderstand. Intellectual property rights are not merely
legal
> creations. They follow from natural rights. The are *recognized* by the
law,
> not created by it.
this is your pet theory, Shayne .. it's one of many schools of
jurispudential thought .. it has shaky foundations and doesn't really stand
scrutiny very well and yet you pound on it relentlessly .. personally, I
don't think IP rights have ANY foundation in natural law; it's all been cut
out of whole cloth by legislators as part of the grand social experiment
When Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was it
because they had an epiphany and "discovered" that nature demanded an extra
twenty years of protection for works of original authorship ?
Jon Kåre Hellan
> In comp.lang.misc Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : Intellectual property rights are not merely legal creations.
> : They follow from natural rights.
>
> You are probably the only person on the planet who thinks so.
Well, Ayn Rand is dead. But I'm sure Shayne Wissler isn't the only
remaining proselyte. However, there are a lot more ex-Randites - sorry
- ex-objectivists - around. Heck, even Alan Greenspan is one. But I
digress.
To understand Shayne Wissler's line of reasoning, you have to know a
little obout objectivism.
Regards
Jon Kåre
Joachim Durchholz
>
> Should someone be able to create a language and have it be protected as
> intellectual property? Absolutely.
I STRONGLY disagree, for reasons detailed below.
> It is obviously a form of intellectual property
Not a "property". Society owes to the creator of a programming language,
of course, but it's debatable whether property is the right way to
express that debt.
IP rights mean that you have a lot of control over what gets done with
it. You can use IP rights to discourage or hinder competitors, free
speech (in the form of "freely expressing your ideas in the form of
source code"), and other important rights of other people. Full
intellectual property infringes on too many rights of other people,
*particularly* when it comes to programming languages.
Sun has tried hard to prevent Microsoft from creating a Java lookalike,
or to use Java to write proprietary software. I find these goals noble,
but IP on programming languages could be used in the reverse direction
just the same: how about Microsoft protecting C# under similar rights?
Microsoft has claimed patents on parts of the .net runtime - what about
these, if the only purpose of these patents is to prevent competers from
writing another .net runtime? (Remember: competition is good; if
competition wouldn't turn individual greed and avarice into common
welfare, capitalism would be a highly undesirable form of organizing
economy. Attempts to hinder competition attack the very core of the
social acceptability of capitalism.) (Another note: Innovation was
fast-paced when patents had no role in software development, and it
didn't speed up when patents became important. Software patents are not
really related to IP on programming languages, but programming language
IP could be even more devastating if the rights under IP followed those
of other IP.)
> --it would not exist if it were not for the particular individuals
> involved in creating it. A language and its semantics is a very particular,
> unique creation, not unlike a work of art in this regard.
A programming language IS a work of art. It requires a lot of original
thinking ("inspiration") and a lot of tinkering ("transpiration").
The good news is: you can't rip off a language and sell it as your own
works. Nobody will believe you :-)
The other good news is: if you invent a successful language, you'll get
rewarded. You'll become member of a language panel, be respected, be
invited for paid contributions and talks. It's not a high reward, but
rewards you do get.
And society doesn't need incentives to create further programming
languages. There are already too many. In this sense, the social value
of a programming language is already too high, and government should not
increase the value by granting rights.
Regards,
Joachim
--
This is not an official statement from my employer.
Joachim Durchholz
> There is no such rule of reasoning or debate that says you shouldn't refer
> to certain facts of history. Godwin's "law" is just a lame attempt by moral
> cowards to escape the responsibility of thinking about the principles
> involved, as principles are best demonstrated by pointing to extreme
> instances.
Nevertheless, any thread that mentions Nazis has reached the end of its
usefulness. Simply because mentioning them is overstating the case.
For heaven's sake, we're talking about the best way to organize economy,
not about industrial mass murder!
Joachim Durchholz
>
> It's a self-solving problem.
>
> If someone decides that "their language" is an exclusive proprietary
> thing, and that all use of it, as a result, "belongs to them," then
> would you imagine that anyone else would use it?
Unfortunately, this isn't true.
If government attaches rights to every programming language, people
would not have any choice but to use IP-protected languages.
Of course, a language inventor could grant his rights to the public
domain. But that would require conscious effort on the side of the
language inventor, and most language inventors aren't versed enough in
legalese to do that reliably.
Regards,
Joachim Durchholz
> The basic issue is: did they give you permission to use their
> creation or not?
No. The basic question is: do I harm you if I reuse your code? Or if I
use the language you invented?
Paul F. Dietz
> Nevertheless, any thread that mentions Nazis has reached the end of its
> usefulness. Simply because mentioning them is overstating the case.
> For heaven's sake, we're talking about the best way to organize economy,
> not about industrial mass murder!
The Godlosers' huffy, self-important follow-on bluster can be amusing, though.
Paul
Joachim Durchholz
> So--stealing Microsoft's source doesn't hurt Microsoft?
Not by the act of stealing itself.
I would damage Microsoft by using that code for a competing product.
I would not damage Microsoft by using that code for a product that does
not compete with any of Microsoft's products.
The act of copying itself hurts nobody. What matters is what you do with
the copy.
From that perspective, copyright is an entirely inappropriate way of
protecting legitimate interests.
Joachim Durchholz
> Again, you misunderstand. Intellectual property rights are not merely legal
> creations. They follow from natural rights. The are *recognized* by the law,
> not created by it.
Sorry, you're simply wrong with that. IP rights were considered
ridiculous until in the 18th century.
Music, literature, art: everything was created and had to be paid for by
subscribers. After that, the published art was copied and reused by
everybody who wanted to do that.
Copyright ended that. But copyright is not a "natural law" like the
right to life. (Even the right to life is not considered "natural law"
in all societies. It's "natural" only insofar as it is something that
everyone wants to have, and it is a Good Thing that such laws are being
established world-wide. But copyright is definitely not on the same
level of importance as the right to life. BTW the right to pursuit of
happiness is a US invention, not part of the usual catalogs of
unalienable humans rights - I think it's a good right, but even that is
not universally considered "natural", not even today and just in the
Western world.)
Regards,
Joachim
Isaac
> In comp.lang.misc Isaac <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote:
>: On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 04:23:30 +0000 (UTC), gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au
>: <gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
>:> In comp.lang.misc Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>:>: "Isaac" <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message
>:>: news:slrnb3gbvm...@latveria.castledoom.org...
>:>:> I guess you cannot steal something that cannot be protected under law.
>:>:> So you do not appropriate (or misappropriate) keywords when you copy
>:>:> them.
>:>: Stealing is, quite simply, taking the unearned.
>:> Sounds reasonable.
>: Have you earned your oxygen today?
>
> I think he means that the person taking it away from someone
> hasn't earned it. The question is whether I have earned _your_
> oxygen, and whether I have a right to take it from you.
Exactly.
And that's a far different thing than the unsupportable statement
he made and you endorsed. Taking something owned by no one is not
theft even if someone else thinks they own it.
Isaac
Barry Margolin
>> In article <ACXZ9.160954$TJ.2...@post-02.news.easynews.com>,
>> Liz <lizs...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> >I don't recall arguing that they were the same .. I don't know what the
>> >confusion is over trademark/copyright in this thread; Mr. Durcholz
>> >commented, in passing, that "[Sun] 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."
>>
>> The message that started this tangent was
>> <slrnb3dr02....@jcs.upb.pitt.edu> by John Slimick, in which he
>> 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.
>
>and that's got what to do with trademark, Barry ?
Because what IBM *actually* did was trademark those names, not copyright
them. John Slimick was clearly confusing the two forms of protection, and
our responses tried to correct his misunderstanding. You made things more
confusing by bringing up the point that they also copyrighted their PL/I
compiler. This may be true, but it's not relevant to what they did with
PL/2, PL/3, and so on.
--
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.
Shayne Wissler
<gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au> wrote in message news:b1ae3b$37p$4...@enyo.uwa.edu.au...
> : A change in degree--from murder to theft--only changes thei
> : rate at which a civilization strangles itself.
>
> But this is "bizarre". :)
>
> How is copying "theft"? If you said that preventing someone
> from copying something by means of copyright was "theft", I
> could understand what you mean, but copying? "Theft" refers
> to taking something away from someone.
Your confusion would make sense only if you had no conception whatsoever of
intellectual property. Go read up on it, I don't think it'd be productive
for me to try to teach you something that in this context is so basic.
Shayne Wissler
Shayne Wissler
<gr...@cs.uwa.edu.au> wrote in message news:b1ag9o$37p$8...@enyo.uwa.edu.au...
> In comp.lang.misc Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : "Isaac" <is...@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote in message
> : news:slrnb3h9ub...@latveria.castledoom.org...
> :> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 02:15:38 GMT, Shayne Wissler <thal...@yahoo.com>
> : wrote:
> :> > <if I take> Smalltalk (which is not copyrighted) and change its
> :> > syntax, I ought to be able to copyright that new syntax.
> :> You ought to be able? Where does the right to do so come from?
> : It's obvious to civilized people that you don't steal.
>
> It's very hard to try to have a rational conversation with you
> when you keep changing your opinion mid-thread.
My opinion hasn't changed, you just have a very fragmented, woozy grasp of
it.