On Thursday 27 March 2008 06:54:36 pm Josselin Mouette wrote: > > The point is that, as previously noted, the patentability of grammar > > sets (i.e. artificial languages) has been recently debated. Including > > the definition of the scripts in this license has the aim to prevent a > > Big Guy to come in, add a frobotz statement and patent the resulting > > language (or, as someone has pointed out, just patent the grammar > > someone else wrote as-is). Or in other words, I did it to maintain > > freedom of the grammar set this language define (it means, freedom for > > everyone to use and extend it). > > No one can patent the grammar that you wrote, so this is completely > useless. The only point of these clauses seem to claim the copyright on > scripts using the language.
Huh? Why can't someone patent langauge grammar/syntax? Seems to fit pretty well into the patentability definition here in the U.S[1]... you don't even need to accept the idea that software is patentable to see how a language might be pantentable. -Sean [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/usc_sup_01_35_10_II_20_10.html -- Sean Kellogg e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
