Hi Bill,
SuperCard, Revolution, HyperTalk and a few other lesser known xTalk
environments are all copyright protected. There are a few languages
in the works, some of which already died, which are open-source.
AFAIK Revolution nor SuperCard pays a royalty to Apple, there is no
need for
On Jul 22, 2006, at 6:06 AM, Mark Schonewille wrote:
[snip]
Anyone can make a compiler/interpreter that speaks an xTalk
variant, as long as you don't reverse engineer. A legal approach
would be to make an xTalk environment first and then make it
compatible with existing xTalk platforms,
AFAIK Revolution nor SuperCard pays a royalty to Apple, there
is no need for that. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if
someone appears to have paid for the right to use part of the
HyperCard source code.
Just speculation.
There is no HyperCard source code in Revolution.
Best regards,
Mark Schonewille wrote:
No, the concept or idea of an xTalk language is not proprietary.
The Transcript, Metatalk, Supertalk, HyperTalk and other
languages are definitely copyrighted.
This is very odd indeed:
presumably 'PUT', 'SET', 'AND' and so on are uncopyrightable as they are
parts
Mark...
Are you sure? Copyrighting language syntax is pretty tricky stuff and I'm
not at all sure that ANY of those *languages* was ever so protected or is
now.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering what your source of such
certainty is.
On 7/22/06, Mark Schonewille [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I didn't mean to suggest that, Lynn.
Mark
--
Economy-x-Talk
Consultancy and Software Engineering
http://economy-x-talk.com
http://www.salery.biz
Download ErrorLib at http://economy-x-talk.com/developers.html and
get full control of error handling in Revolution.
Op 22-jul-2006, om 19:57
Hi Dan,
If you interprete me saying that the languages themselves are
copyrighted, then I am probably wrong, but you really can't reverse
engineer Apple's HyperTalk engine or SuperCard's compiler, not to
mention Revolution's. If you want to be really sure, though, read the
licenses and
Mark...
I think your summary is correct.
Dan
On 7/22/06, Mark Schonewille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Dan,
If you interprete me saying that the languages themselves are
copyrighted, then I am probably wrong, but you really can't reverse
engineer Apple's HyperTalk engine or SuperCard's
Richmond Mathewson wrote:
This needs a much more detailed explanation as what is and what is not
free/copyright/otherwise.
It isn't that hard to understand. You can copyright your implementation
of something but you can't copyright an idea.
The idea of an xtalk language is not
This is so off-topic I'm loath to respond but given that I have formal
training in intellectual property law, I can't resist. Sorry. Feel free to
ignore me.
While you are basically right, Jacque, the issue isn't as easy as it seems.
In part, that's because you're mixing patent and copyright
On Jul 22, 2006, at 11:13 AM, Dan Shafer wrote:
Mark...
Are you sure? Copyrighting language syntax is pretty tricky stuff
and I'm
not at all sure that ANY of those *languages* was ever so protected
or is
now.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering what your source of such
certainty
So the answer to the original question is No, xTalk can't be
considered an open source language syntax.
Someone would have to come up with a separate xTalk like syntax and
release that as open source.
-Garrett
___
use-revolution mailing list
Dan Shafer wrote:
So I draw the (tentative) conclusion (with no research into recent
case law
and a big caveat that I'm not a practicing attorney, just a law-trained
layman) that the xTalk *language* would not be subject to copyright
but the
underlying programming code that makes that
13 matches
Mail list logo
