Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
On Wed, 2 May 2012 22:39:45 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote: On 5/2/2012 7:33 PM, Scott Ford wrote: So how do you protect code, whatever language you have written in , in business ? You must treat it as trade secret information. Not quite the point. Suppose someone wanted to create a product that performs the same functions as, for example, SDSF. He's free to do so legally, as long as he doesn't base his product on the source code (or disassembled load modules, etc.) of SDSF. He may, however, read the reference manuals of SDSF to learn what function it performs, but the implementation must be original. He may not IEBCOPY unload SDSF; AMASPZAP it to change the panel appearance and sell it as original work. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
Exactly. Nor may he line by line paraphrase the source code from PL/S (assembler?) to C++ or Java or PL/I (Whelan v. Jaslow). Nor, quite possibly, may he make the screen layout the same as SDSF, or almost the same. Nor, of course, may he rip off those reference manuals; he must create his own, with his own expression. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:23 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules On Wed, 2 May 2012 22:39:45 -0700, Edward Jaffe wrote: On 5/2/2012 7:33 PM, Scott Ford wrote: So how do you protect code, whatever language you have written in , in business ? You must treat it as trade secret information. Not quite the point. Suppose someone wanted to create a product that performs the same functions as, for example, SDSF. He's free to do so legally, as long as he doesn't base his product on the source code (or disassembled load modules, etc.) of SDSF. He may, however, read the reference manuals of SDSF to learn what function it performs, but the implementation must be original. He may not IEBCOPY unload SDSF; AMASPZAP it to change the panel appearance and sell it as original work. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
You cannot protect with copyright, for example, the syntax | __READ__file-name-1__ __ __ __ | ||_NEXT_| |_RECORD_| |_INTO__identifier-1_| | | | | __ _ __ __ ___ | ||_ __END__imperative-statement-1_| |_NOT__ __END__imperative-statement-2_| | | |_AT_||_AT_| | | | | __ __ ___ | ||_END-READ_| | You can protect with copyright your compiler source code that converts a statement in that syntax into machine instructions. You can probably protect with copyright the above expression of the syntax. That is to say, I am potentially violating IBM's copyright by pasting it here. There are other ways of expressing the same syntax, for example READ file_1 [NEXT] [RECORD] [INTO variable_1] [[AT] END] etc. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Ford Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:52 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules Charles, Functionality of the language ? Not being dense, but you functionally what the programming language does in the app or functionally what it does, I.e.; read files ,write files, etc.. Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com On May 3, 2012, at 12:15 AM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Right. If you wrote a COBOL compiler, you could protect your compiler code under copyright, you could protect your manual, you could protect the layout of your interactive debugger screens. But you can't protect the functionality of the language. I can write my own COBOL compiler, manual, and interactive debugger. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Schwab Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:19 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules This is not the code. This is the language specification. Someone could write their own version of your product. Then users could buy their application instead of yours and run their programs. On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote: All, So how do you protect code, whatever language you have written in , in business ? Without copyright, doesn't it imply , people can take you source and change it and resell it ...if the gave your source , right ? Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com On May 2, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Can one replicate the 'look and feel' without copyright issues in the EU now? I might add that look and feel might be subject to copyright protection. Copyright, again, protects *expression.* If I wrote a z/OS system monitor that cleverly displayed the status of started tasks as bouncing balls of various sizes and colors, that expression might be subject to copyright, but the function of displaying the status of started tasks graphically would not. Charles -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
Go re-read the decision. The decision said nothing about the actual SAS code. It said that the documented interfaces including the language could not be copyrighted. The code and the documentation can be copyrighted and protected. Lloyd - Original Message From: Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Wed, May 2, 2012 10:33:56 PM Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules All, So how do you protect code, whatever language you have written in , in business ? Without copyright, doesn't it imply , people can take you source and change it and resell it ...if the gave your source , right ? Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com On May 2, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Can one replicate the 'look and feel' without copyright issues in the EU now? I might add that look and feel might be subject to copyright protection. Copyright, again, protects *expression.* If I wrote a z/OS system monitor that cleverly displayed the status of started tasks as bouncing balls of various sizes and colors, that expression might be subject to copyright, but the function of displaying the status of started tasks graphically would not. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:16 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules Lots of confusion here. 1. US and EU are of course different. Laws and precedents don't matter much from one to the other. 2. Copyright in the US has never protected programming language specifications, etc. Google Lotus v. Borland, the seminal case, which went all the way to SCOTUS. 3. Copyright and Patent are way different. Copyright is trivially easy to get and protects expression: think of poetry. Copyright protects a particular COBOL manual and compiler source code but not the concepts and functions of COBOL. Patents are very hard to get and protect function. This decision has no relationship to patents (except that it reaffirms that copyright does not protect the things that only a patent would protect). 4. Intellectual Property is the name of the kind of stuff copyrights and patents protect. It is not a form of protection of its own. Personal property is not a form of protection, but personal property is protected by theft laws. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Hal Merritt Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:01 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to understand the ramifications, but this sounds huge. The result is that the court finds that ideas and principles which underlie any element of a computer program are not protected by copyright under that directive, only the expression of those ideas and principles. What does the above really mean? Can one replicate the 'look and feel' without copyright issues in the EU now? In the US, there is the concept of 'intellectual property' that seems to protect ideas from theft. Does that now mean open season in the EU? Or am I confusing copyright with patents? Granted, I currently think that the US patent system is broken, but this seems a bit of an over kill. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Ford Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 9:33 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules All, So how do you protect code, whatever language you have written in , in business ? Without copyright, doesn't it imply , people can take you source and change it and resell it ...if the gave your source , right ? Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com No, copyright stops people from taking the source and simply making minor modifications (such as changing variable names), then calling it theirs. There is a concept called a derivative work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work . The concept of taking the source, change it, and resell it is the major distinctions in many of the open source licenses, such as Apache, MIT, *BSD, and my favorite GPL. The GPL license is specifically written to stop just such an occurrence. And it has been enforced in some lawsuits. And, to my knowledge, has never failed in a copyright lawsuit. quote In United States copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work). /quote But it does not prevent using the __ideas__ in the work in an independent work (think POSIX compliance in UNIX!). That's why there can be, and are, so many of the beloved Harlequin Romance type novels. grin/ IMO, Groklaw is a good source for learning about some of these things. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
On Wed, 2 May 2012 10:49:18 -0700, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Can one replicate the 'look and feel' without copyright issues in the EU now? I might add that look and feel might be subject to copyright protection. Copyright, again, protects *expression.* If I wrote a z/OS system monitor that cleverly displayed the status of started tasks as bouncing balls of various sizes and colors, that expression might be subject to copyright, but the function of displaying the status of started tasks graphically would not. And, if I understand the Oracle claims in the US lawsuit, Oracle says that they -can- copyright the library specifications and implementation (API) because (I think) it's a kind of look and feel aspect of their Java implementation, even if they can't copyright the Java language itself. But that seems to go directly against the EU decision we're talking about here, since the SAS case seems to revolve around duplication of library APIs, too, if I understand it correctly. -- Walt -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
Oh, I also forgot to mention the concept of clean room reverse engineering, which is used by some to recreate the functionality of a system in such a way as to avoid any taint of copying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering One of the best known was the Phoenix BIOS for the IBM PC, back when it came out. It enabled PC clones to run MS-DOS. But none of this applies in this case. It would be like whomever first thought up the bubble sort technique and wrote some English description, claiming that anybody who actually implemented this type of sort violated their copyright. That would be a patent. If you could patent the bubble sort, then anybody who implemented it would need a license to write a program, even from scratch, which implements it. I thought of this specifically because some parts of DFSORT are patented. And perhaps parts of z/OS are as well. Which would be one reason why nobody has tried to make a work alike of z/OS (yes, I've read about Fujitsu's MSP) -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of McKown, John Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 7:49 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Ford Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 9:33 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules All, So how do you protect code, whatever language you have written in , in business ? Without copyright, doesn't it imply , people can take you source and change it and resell it ...if the gave your source , right ? Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com No, copyright stops people from taking the source and simply making minor modifications (such as changing variable names), then calling it theirs. There is a concept called a derivative work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work . The concept of taking the source, change it, and resell it is the major distinctions in many of the open source licenses, such as Apache, MIT, *BSD, and my favorite GPL. The GPL license is specifically written to stop just such an occurrence. And it has been enforced in some lawsuits. And, to my knowledge, has never failed in a copyright lawsuit. quote In United States copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work). /quote But it does not prevent using the __ideas__ in the work in an independent work (think POSIX compliance in UNIX!). That's why there can be, and are, so many of the beloved Harlequin Romance type novels. grin/ IMO, Groklaw is a good source for learning about some of these things. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
In 14d901cd2887$312cfba0$9386f2e0$@mcn.org, on 05/02/2012 at 10:15 AM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org said: Patents are very hard to get Would that that were true. USPTO fails to exclude patents that should be invalid due to, e.g., prior art. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT ISO position; see http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress. (S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
Right, Walt. Their claims fly in the face of precedent as I understand it. They are trying to claim than any implementation of Java is a derivative work (see earlier posts in this thread) of the Java specifications. I predict -- and hope -- they lose. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Walt Farrell Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 6:05 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules On Wed, 2 May 2012 10:49:18 -0700, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Can one replicate the 'look and feel' without copyright issues in the EU now? I might add that look and feel might be subject to copyright protection. Copyright, again, protects *expression.* If I wrote a z/OS system monitor that cleverly displayed the status of started tasks as bouncing balls of various sizes and colors, that expression might be subject to copyright, but the function of displaying the status of started tasks graphically would not. And, if I understand the Oracle claims in the US lawsuit, Oracle says that they -can- copyright the library specifications and implementation (API) because (I think) it's a kind of look and feel aspect of their Java implementation, even if they can't copyright the Java language itself. But that seems to go directly against the EU decision we're talking about here, since the SAS case seems to revolve around duplication of library APIs, too, if I understand it correctly. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
If you think patents are easy to get you should try applying for one. I have. Seriously, whatever one's criticisms of the USPTO, it is indisputable that patents are a lot harder to get than copyright. Copyright is trivial. You write something, you fix it in a tangible medium (which includes, by statute, keying it into a text editor) and voila! you own the copyright on it. That's it! Patents involve applications, years, at least a plausible claim of novelty and usefulness, and non-trivial fees. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 6:18 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules In 14d901cd2887$312cfba0$9386f2e0$@mcn.org, on 05/02/2012 at 10:15 AM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org said: Patents are very hard to get Would that that were true. USPTO fails to exclude patents that should be invalid due to, e.g., prior art. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
Charles Mills has made the operative distinction very clear, but let me try another analogy. Think of yourself, briefly, as Shakespeare. You have written Sonnet XXX, When to the sessions of sweet silent thought I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought. Then can I . . . . . . You, Shakespeare, may copyright this sonnet, its specific content. You may not copyright the fourteen-line sonnet form and its rhyming scheme. Instances of a schema are copyrightable and protectable. The schema itself is not. You may, that is, protect yourself against the misappropriation of a sonnet that you write. You may not interdict the writing of [non-duplicative] sonnets by others. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
Charles, Yeh I know, had uncles in construction business, had patents on tools...we all can't be Nathan Myhrvold and be worth $650 million..man be interesting Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com On May 3, 2012, at 9:47 AM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: If you think patents are easy to get you should try applying for one. I have. Seriously, whatever one's criticisms of the USPTO, it is indisputable that patents are a lot harder to get than copyright. Copyright is trivial. You write something, you fix it in a tangible medium (which includes, by statute, keying it into a text editor) and voila! you own the copyright on it. That's it! Patents involve applications, years, at least a plausible claim of novelty and usefulness, and non-trivial fees. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 6:18 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules In 14d901cd2887$312cfba0$9386f2e0$@mcn.org, on 05/02/2012 at 10:15 AM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org said: Patents are very hard to get Would that that were true. USPTO fails to exclude patents that should be invalid due to, e.g., prior art. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
On Thu, 3 May 2012 06:43:45 -0700, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Right, Walt. Their claims fly in the face of precedent as I understand it. They are trying to claim than any implementation of Java is a derivative work (see earlier posts in this thread) of the Java specifications. I predict -- and hope -- they lose. No, I don't -think- that's what they're claiming. The Java language is rather straightforward. But knowing the -language- doesn't really help you write Java programs. Most programs have to rely on the library of function calls that Sun provided, and Oracle seems to be claiming that the library is separate from the language, and that the library calls (the API) are a look and feel expression that is copyrightable. So anyone is free to make a Java interpreter or compiler, but they can't implement the same library without duplicating Oracle's look-and-feel. They could implement a different library of function calls, but of course at that point none of the Java programs expecting Oracle's library would work. -- Walt -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
You are right. I stand corrected. They could implement a different library of function calls, but of course at that point none of the Java programs expecting Oracle's library would work. I wonder if Google raised a merger defense: if there is only one way to do something, you can't protect it under copyright. Expression and function merge and function wins out. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Walt Farrell Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 7:33 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules On Thu, 3 May 2012 06:43:45 -0700, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Right, Walt. Their claims fly in the face of precedent as I understand it. They are trying to claim than any implementation of Java is a derivative work (see earlier posts in this thread) of the Java specifications. I predict -- and hope -- they lose. No, I don't -think- that's what they're claiming. The Java language is rather straightforward. But knowing the -language- doesn't really help you write Java programs. Most programs have to rely on the library of function calls that Sun provided, and Oracle seems to be claiming that the library is separate from the language, and that the library calls (the API) are a look and feel expression that is copyrightable. So anyone is free to make a Java interpreter or compiler, but they can't implement the same library without duplicating Oracle's look-and-feel. They could implement a different library of function calls, but of course at that point none of the Java programs expecting Oracle's library would work. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
I always bristle at the use of the word copyright as a verb (all of the dictionaries do support the verb form) and try never to use it that way myself, although it is easy to slip. Historically, perhaps you could copyright something, as John's Shakespeare perhaps did. Now, in the US and most nations (Berne convention) copyright is a noun that inures automatically to authors upon fixing the work in a tangible form. You can't copyright (verb) something. You either own the copyright (noun) or you do not. The work is copyright (adjective) or it is not. You can (optionally) REGISTER the copyright with the Library of Congress, but that's a different matter. Not to argue in the least with the substance of John's post ... Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of John Gilmore Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 7:17 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules Charles Mills has made the operative distinction very clear, but let me try another analogy. Think of yourself, briefly, as Shakespeare. You have written Sonnet XXX, When to the sessions of sweet silent thought I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought. Then can I . . . . . . You, Shakespeare, may copyright this sonnet, its specific content. You may not copyright the fourteen-line sonnet form and its rhyming scheme. Instances of a schema are copyrightable and protectable. The schema itself is not. You may, that is, protect yourself against the misappropriation of a sonnet that you write. You may not interdict the writing of [non-duplicative] sonnets by others. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this about Google imbedding java in their operating system on phones ? Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com On May 3, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: I always bristle at the use of the word copyright as a verb (all of the dictionaries do support the verb form) and try never to use it that way myself, although it is easy to slip. Historically, perhaps you could copyright something, as John's Shakespeare perhaps did. Now, in the US and most nations (Berne convention) copyright is a noun that inures automatically to authors upon fixing the work in a tangible form. You can't copyright (verb) something. You either own the copyright (noun) or you do not. The work is copyright (adjective) or it is not. You can (optionally) REGISTER the copyright with the Library of Congress, but that's a different matter. Not to argue in the least with the substance of John's post ... Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of John Gilmore Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 7:17 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules Charles Mills has made the operative distinction very clear, but let me try another analogy. Think of yourself, briefly, as Shakespeare. You have written Sonnet XXX, When to the sessions of sweet silent thought I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought. Then can I . . . . . . You, Shakespeare, may copyright this sonnet, its specific content. You may not copyright the fourteen-line sonnet form and its rhyming scheme. Instances of a schema are copyrightable and protectable. The schema itself is not. You may, that is, protect yourself against the misappropriation of a sonnet that you write. You may not interdict the writing of [non-duplicative] sonnets by others. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
Basically, yes. Except that the Android system is not an OS. It is like a JVM (only not really) in that the OS running on the phone is actually Linux. Android does not use Java byte code. Java compiles to a universal byte code (instruction set) sequence. The JVM (Java Virtual Machine) interprets the byte code and executes it (ignoring the JIT compiler in most JVMs and the weird way that the i does it). JVM is stack based, not register based. Development for Android (which is not in the new native mode) is done in Java. This produces a normal Java .class output file. But this cannot be run directly on Android. There is another program which takes the Java byte code and converts it to Dalvik byte code. The Dalvik byte code is then loaded onto the Android system (usually a phone or a tablet at present) and is interpreted by the Dalvik interpreter on the phone/tablet. So what Google has done is implement a system (Android) which has a subroutine library for use by the Dalvik virtual machine. And this subroutine library presents the same API as the Java API. Oracle says this is copying. But, to me, it would be like writing C++ code to create a C++ callable native library which has functions in it which implement the Java API. It's not Java. It's not copied source code. It is simply a library with functions in it that echo the functions in the Java system. That is, you could tell the C++ programmer to just read the Java library documentation (freely viewable via the Web on an Oracle maintained site) to use you library for C++. And Oracle says that is a violation of their copyright. Or, if you prefer, it would be like having a Java source code to C++ source code converter and an Java-compatible C++ library which was not licensed by Oracle. Again, this would, according to Oracle, violate their copyright to Java. I used to be indifferent towards Oracle. I now have yet another vendor that I despise. And we are in the process of eliminating them due to costs. Or course the fact that we are converting to MS-SQL Server is not exactly pleasing to me. Many in the FOSS arena are joking that Google's motto may be Never do evil, but Oracle's is Only do evil. But this was over Sun's OpenOffice which Oracle acquired with Sun and tried to make proprietary. OpenOffice has been forked, which is legal because it was GPL licensed by Sun, and most Linux users have converted to LibreOffice. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Ford Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 11:59 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this about Google imbedding java in their operating system on phones ? Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com On May 3, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: I always bristle at the use of the word copyright as a verb (all of the dictionaries do support the verb form) and try never to use it that way myself, although it is easy to slip. Historically, perhaps you could copyright something, as John's Shakespeare perhaps did. Now, in the US and most nations (Berne convention) copyright is a noun that inures automatically to authors upon fixing the work in a tangible form. You can't copyright (verb) something. You either own the copyright (noun) or you do not. The work is copyright (adjective) or it is not. You can (optionally) REGISTER the copyright with the Library of Congress, but that's a different matter. Not to argue in the least with the substance of John's post ... Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of John Gilmore Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 7:17 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules Charles Mills has made the operative distinction very clear, but let me try another analogy. Think of yourself, briefly, as Shakespeare. You have written Sonnet XXX, When to the sessions of sweet silent thought
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
John, Thanks for the explanation, we deal our product also through Oracle, strictly between you and me, we are taking a serious screwing financially, plus the manuals done in India ...man Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com On May 3, 2012, at 1:48 PM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote: Basically, yes. Except that the Android system is not an OS. It is like a JVM (only not really) in that the OS running on the phone is actually Linux. Android does not use Java byte code. Java compiles to a universal byte code (instruction set) sequence. The JVM (Java Virtual Machine) interprets the byte code and executes it (ignoring the JIT compiler in most JVMs and the weird way that the i does it). JVM is stack based, not register based. Development for Android (which is not in the new native mode) is done in Java. This produces a normal Java .class output file. But this cannot be run directly on Android. There is another program which takes the Java byte code and converts it to Dalvik byte code. The Dalvik byte code is then loaded onto the Android system (usually a phone or a tablet at present) and is interpreted by the Dalvik interpreter on the phone/tablet. So what Google has done is implement a system (Android) which has a subroutine library for use by the Dalvik virtual machine. And this subroutine library presents the same API as the Java API. Oracle says this is copying. But, to me, it would be like writing C++ code to create a C++ callable native library which has functions in it which implement the Java API. It's not Java. It's not copied source code. It is simply a library with functions in it that echo the functions in the Java system. That is, you could tell the C++ programmer to just read the Java library documentation (freely viewable via the Web on an Oracle maintained site) to use you library for C++. And Oracle says that is a violation of their copyright. Or, if you prefer, it would be like having a Java source code to C++ source code converter and an Java-compatible C++ library which was not licensed by Oracle. Again, this would, according to Oracle, violate their copyright to Java. I used to be indifferent towards Oracle. I now have yet another vendor that I despise. And we are in the process of eliminating them due to costs. Or course the fact that we are converting to MS-SQL Server is not exactly pleasing to me. Many in the FOSS arena are joking that Google's motto may be Never do evil, but Oracle's is Only do evil. But this was over Sun's OpenOffice which Oracle acquired with Sun and tried to make proprietary. OpenOffice has been forked, which is legal because it was GPL licensed by Sun, and most Linux users have converted to LibreOffice. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Ford Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 11:59 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this about Google imbedding java in their operating system on phones ? Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com On May 3, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: I always bristle at the use of the word copyright as a verb (all of the dictionaries do support the verb form) and try never to use it that way myself, although it is easy to slip. Historically, perhaps you could copyright something, as John's Shakespeare perhaps did. Now, in the US and most nations (Berne convention) copyright is a noun that inures automatically to authors upon fixing the work in a tangible form. You can't copyright (verb) something. You either own the copyright (noun) or you do not. The work is copyright (adjective) or it is not. You can (optionally) REGISTER the copyright with the Library of Congress, but that's a different matter. Not to argue in the least with the substance of John's post ... Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of John Gilmore Sent: Thursday
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
Guys, I don't hate Oracle, far from it, most of our customers about 99% are great and helpful.. I don't understand some business nowadays Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com On May 3, 2012, at 1:48 PM, McKown, John john.mck...@healthmarkets.com wrote: Basically, yes. Except that the Android system is not an OS. It is like a JVM (only not really) in that the OS running on the phone is actually Linux. Android does not use Java byte code. Java compiles to a universal byte code (instruction set) sequence. The JVM (Java Virtual Machine) interprets the byte code and executes it (ignoring the JIT compiler in most JVMs and the weird way that the i does it). JVM is stack based, not register based. Development for Android (which is not in the new native mode) is done in Java. This produces a normal Java .class output file. But this cannot be run directly on Android. There is another program which takes the Java byte code and converts it to Dalvik byte code. The Dalvik byte code is then loaded onto the Android system (usually a phone or a tablet at present) and is interpreted by the Dalvik interpreter on the phone/tablet. So what Google has done is implement a system (Android) which has a subroutine library for use by the Dalvik virtual machine. And this subroutine library presents the same API as the Java API. Oracle says this is copying. But, to me, it would be like writing C++ code to create a C++ callable native library which has functions in it which implement the Java API. It's not Java. It's not copied source code. It is simply a library with functions in it that echo the functions in the Java system. That is, you could tell the C++ programmer to just read the Java library documentation (freely viewable via the Web on an Oracle maintained site) to use you library for C++. And Oracle says that is a violation of their copyright. Or, if you prefer, it would be like having a Java source code to C++ source code converter and an Java-compatible C++ library which was not licensed by Oracle. Again, this would, according to Oracle, violate their copyright to Java. I used to be indifferent towards Oracle. I now have yet another vendor that I despise. And we are in the process of eliminating them due to costs. Or course the fact that we are converting to MS-SQL Server is not exactly pleasing to me. Many in the FOSS arena are joking that Google's motto may be Never do evil, but Oracle's is Only do evil. But this was over Sun's OpenOffice which Oracle acquired with Sun and tried to make proprietary. OpenOffice has been forked, which is legal because it was GPL licensed by Sun, and most Linux users have converted to LibreOffice. -- John McKown Systems Engineer IV IT Administrative Services Group HealthMarkets(r) 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 (817) 255-3225 phone * john.mck...@healthmarkets.com * www.HealthMarkets.com Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Ford Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 11:59 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this about Google imbedding java in their operating system on phones ? Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com On May 3, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: I always bristle at the use of the word copyright as a verb (all of the dictionaries do support the verb form) and try never to use it that way myself, although it is easy to slip. Historically, perhaps you could copyright something, as John's Shakespeare perhaps did. Now, in the US and most nations (Berne convention) copyright is a noun that inures automatically to authors upon fixing the work in a tangible form. You can't copyright (verb) something. You either own the copyright (noun) or you do not. The work is copyright (adjective) or it is not. You can (optionally) REGISTER the copyright with the Library of Congress, but that's a different matter. Not to argue in the least with the substance of John's post ... Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of John Gilmore Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 7:17 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to understand the ramifications, but this sounds huge. The result is that the court finds that ideas and principles which underlie any element of a computer program are not protected by copyright under that directive, only the expression of those ideas and principles. What does the above really mean? Can one replicate the 'look and feel' without copyright issues in the EU now? In the US, there is the concept of 'intellectual property' that seems to protect ideas from theft. Does that now mean open season in the EU? Or am I confusing copyright with patents? Granted, I currently think that the US patent system is broken, but this seems a bit of an over kill. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Regan Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:35 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules Watch for possible URL truncation as it gets wrapped http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9226783/Programming_languages_can_t_have_copyright_protection_EU_court_rules Thanks, Mark Regan -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message, together with any attachment, may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, printing, saving, copying, disclosure or distribution is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete all copies. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
This is what I was saying (for US law) relative to Oracle's claim that a copyright on the Java specification document protected the functioning of the language described therein. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Regan Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:35 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules Watch for possible URL truncation as it gets wrapped http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9226783/Programming_languages_can_t_h ave_copyright_protection_EU_court_rules -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
Lots of confusion here. 1. US and EU are of course different. Laws and precedents don't matter much from one to the other. 2. Copyright in the US has never protected programming language specifications, etc. Google Lotus v. Borland, the seminal case, which went all the way to SCOTUS. 3. Copyright and Patent are way different. Copyright is trivially easy to get and protects expression: think of poetry. Copyright protects a particular COBOL manual and compiler source code but not the concepts and functions of COBOL. Patents are very hard to get and protect function. This decision has no relationship to patents (except that it reaffirms that copyright does not protect the things that only a patent would protect). 4. Intellectual Property is the name of the kind of stuff copyrights and patents protect. It is not a form of protection of its own. Personal property is not a form of protection, but personal property is protected by theft laws. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Hal Merritt Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:01 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to understand the ramifications, but this sounds huge. The result is that the court finds that ideas and principles which underlie any element of a computer program are not protected by copyright under that directive, only the expression of those ideas and principles. What does the above really mean? Can one replicate the 'look and feel' without copyright issues in the EU now? In the US, there is the concept of 'intellectual property' that seems to protect ideas from theft. Does that now mean open season in the EU? Or am I confusing copyright with patents? Granted, I currently think that the US patent system is broken, but this seems a bit of an over kill. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
Can one replicate the 'look and feel' without copyright issues in the EU now? I might add that look and feel might be subject to copyright protection. Copyright, again, protects *expression.* If I wrote a z/OS system monitor that cleverly displayed the status of started tasks as bouncing balls of various sizes and colors, that expression might be subject to copyright, but the function of displaying the status of started tasks graphically would not. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:16 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules Lots of confusion here. 1. US and EU are of course different. Laws and precedents don't matter much from one to the other. 2. Copyright in the US has never protected programming language specifications, etc. Google Lotus v. Borland, the seminal case, which went all the way to SCOTUS. 3. Copyright and Patent are way different. Copyright is trivially easy to get and protects expression: think of poetry. Copyright protects a particular COBOL manual and compiler source code but not the concepts and functions of COBOL. Patents are very hard to get and protect function. This decision has no relationship to patents (except that it reaffirms that copyright does not protect the things that only a patent would protect). 4. Intellectual Property is the name of the kind of stuff copyrights and patents protect. It is not a form of protection of its own. Personal property is not a form of protection, but personal property is protected by theft laws. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Hal Merritt Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:01 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to understand the ramifications, but this sounds huge. The result is that the court finds that ideas and principles which underlie any element of a computer program are not protected by copyright under that directive, only the expression of those ideas and principles. What does the above really mean? Can one replicate the 'look and feel' without copyright issues in the EU now? In the US, there is the concept of 'intellectual property' that seems to protect ideas from theft. Does that now mean open season in the EU? Or am I confusing copyright with patents? Granted, I currently think that the US patent system is broken, but this seems a bit of an over kill. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
All, So how do you protect code, whatever language you have written in , in business ? Without copyright, doesn't it imply , people can take you source and change it and resell it ...if the gave your source , right ? Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com On May 2, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Can one replicate the 'look and feel' without copyright issues in the EU now? I might add that look and feel might be subject to copyright protection. Copyright, again, protects *expression.* If I wrote a z/OS system monitor that cleverly displayed the status of started tasks as bouncing balls of various sizes and colors, that expression might be subject to copyright, but the function of displaying the status of started tasks graphically would not. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Charles Mills Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:16 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules Lots of confusion here. 1. US and EU are of course different. Laws and precedents don't matter much from one to the other. 2. Copyright in the US has never protected programming language specifications, etc. Google Lotus v. Borland, the seminal case, which went all the way to SCOTUS. 3. Copyright and Patent are way different. Copyright is trivially easy to get and protects expression: think of poetry. Copyright protects a particular COBOL manual and compiler source code but not the concepts and functions of COBOL. Patents are very hard to get and protect function. This decision has no relationship to patents (except that it reaffirms that copyright does not protect the things that only a patent would protect). 4. Intellectual Property is the name of the kind of stuff copyrights and patents protect. It is not a form of protection of its own. Personal property is not a form of protection, but personal property is protected by theft laws. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Hal Merritt Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:01 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules I'm not a lawyer and don't pretend to understand the ramifications, but this sounds huge. The result is that the court finds that ideas and principles which underlie any element of a computer program are not protected by copyright under that directive, only the expression of those ideas and principles. What does the above really mean? Can one replicate the 'look and feel' without copyright issues in the EU now? In the US, there is the concept of 'intellectual property' that seems to protect ideas from theft. Does that now mean open season in the EU? Or am I confusing copyright with patents? Granted, I currently think that the US patent system is broken, but this seems a bit of an over kill. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
This is not the code. This is the language specification. Someone could write their own version of your product. Then users could buy their application instead of yours and run their programs. On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote: All, So how do you protect code, whatever language you have written in , in business ? Without copyright, doesn't it imply , people can take you source and change it and resell it ...if the gave your source , right ? Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com On May 2, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Can one replicate the 'look and feel' without copyright issues in the EU now? I might add that look and feel might be subject to copyright protection. Copyright, again, protects *expression.* If I wrote a z/OS system monitor that cleverly displayed the status of started tasks as bouncing balls of various sizes and colors, that expression might be subject to copyright, but the function of displaying the status of started tasks graphically would not. Charles -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
Right. If you wrote a COBOL compiler, you could protect your compiler code under copyright, you could protect your manual, you could protect the layout of your interactive debugger screens. But you can't protect the functionality of the language. I can write my own COBOL compiler, manual, and interactive debugger. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Schwab Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:19 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules This is not the code. This is the language specification. Someone could write their own version of your product. Then users could buy their application instead of yours and run their programs. On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote: All, So how do you protect code, whatever language you have written in , in business ? Without copyright, doesn't it imply , people can take you source and change it and resell it ...if the gave your source , right ? Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com On May 2, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Can one replicate the 'look and feel' without copyright issues in the EU now? I might add that look and feel might be subject to copyright protection. Copyright, again, protects *expression.* If I wrote a z/OS system monitor that cleverly displayed the status of started tasks as bouncing balls of various sizes and colors, that expression might be subject to copyright, but the function of displaying the status of started tasks graphically would not. Charles -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
On 5/2/2012 7:33 PM, Scott Ford wrote: So how do you protect code, whatever language you have written in , in business ? You must treat it as trade secret information. -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 831 Parkview Drive North El Segundo, CA 90245 310-338-0400 x318 edja...@phoenixsoftware.com http://www.phoenixsoftware.com/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules
Charles, Functionality of the language ? Not being dense, but you functionally what the programming language does in the app or functionally what it does, I.e.; read files ,write files, etc.. Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com On May 3, 2012, at 12:15 AM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Right. If you wrote a COBOL compiler, you could protect your compiler code under copyright, you could protect your manual, you could protect the layout of your interactive debugger screens. But you can't protect the functionality of the language. I can write my own COBOL compiler, manual, and interactive debugger. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Schwab Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 8:19 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright protection, EU court rules This is not the code. This is the language specification. Someone could write their own version of your product. Then users could buy their application instead of yours and run their programs. On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Scott Ford scott_j_f...@yahoo.com wrote: All, So how do you protect code, whatever language you have written in , in business ? Without copyright, doesn't it imply , people can take you source and change it and resell it ...if the gave your source , right ? Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com On May 2, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Charles Mills charl...@mcn.org wrote: Can one replicate the 'look and feel' without copyright issues in the EU now? I might add that look and feel might be subject to copyright protection. Copyright, again, protects *expression.* If I wrote a z/OS system monitor that cleverly displayed the status of started tasks as bouncing balls of various sizes and colors, that expression might be subject to copyright, but the function of displaying the status of started tasks graphically would not. Charles -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
