Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
more useful options
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Copyright on languages

by ikegami (Pope)
on May 02, 2012 at 19:02 UTC ( #968510=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Copyright on languages
in thread Copyright on languages

But doesn't the phrase "owner of Java" imply that?

Me calling Oracle the owner of Java has no legal significance. It's uncontested that Oracle owns the trademark on the name Java. It owns the copyright on their their code, libraries, binaries, etc. That is what I meant what I colloquially called them the owner of Java.

I wonder if the fact that it's Java will strengthen Google's case, because Java is its API.

That seems to be a major argument of Google's.

You can do a lot with Perl without ever using a module

Any idea how unique that is? Assembler, C, C++, Java and bash separate grammar from functionality. I believe LISP, Scheme and Haskell do too, but I really don't know them. Pascal and VB do provide at least a print statement.

I think Perl would prefer to have the two separate. In the development of Perl5, a lot of emphasis is being placed on features that give the ability to extend perl without changing perl itself.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Copyright on languages
by aaron_baugher (Curate) on May 02, 2012 at 20:53 UTC

    Ok, so Oracle owns the copyright on the code, but not on the name of the language, and that's why the judge says it's questionable whether "languages" can be copyrighted? That seems like hair-splitting to me, but I guess that's what courts are for.

    I didn't mean that Perl is unique in separating (or not separating) grammar from functionality. I just meant that if you take away the support libraries -- the modules, which I'm thinking of as the API, analogous to Java's class libraries -- you still have something that's identifiably Perl. This doesn't look like anything but Perl, as far as I know:

    next unless $s =~ m|/foo/|i;

    With Java, on the other hand, if you remove the classes, what you have left doesn't look much different from several other C-style languages. (To my knowledge; admittedly I haven't used Java in a few years, and was never an expert.) Since software copyright infringement often comes down to how much you copied the "look and feel," it seems like Google might have an easier time making their case with Java than if they were using Perl. But I'm just spitballing; I don't know anything about the legalities or details here.

    Aaron B.
    My Woefully Neglected Blog, where I occasionally mention Perl.

      Ok, so Oracle owns the copyright on the code, but not on the name of the language

      Names aren't covered by Copyright law, but by trademark/servicemark law. The latter is consumer protection law. Oracle does own the trademark on Java and the coffee cup logo.

      and that's why the judge says it's questionable whether "languages" can be copyrighted?

      The judge has said nothing of the kind, much less for the reasons you gave.

      The judge simply said there's no precedent either way. "No decision on point that says that computer languages have not been copyrightable."

      I didn't mean that Perl is unique in separating (or not separating) grammar from functionality.

      I know. I understood your point and I agree with it. Your comment simply raised a interesting question.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://968510]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others browsing the Monastery: (5)
As of 2020-10-31 02:49 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    My favourite web site is:












    Results (286 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?