🚀 go-pugleaf

phipps@garth.UUCP (Clay Phipps)
> [PL/I] remained "NPL" until the National Physical Lab (NPL) in the U.K. 
> objected, 
> resulting in renaming the language "PL/I".  That turf scuffle in 1965 
> foreshadowed today's legal climate, but fortunately did not burden us with 
> "PL/I (tm) International Business Machines Corporation" (cf. "Ada", "dBase").

I recall reading somewhere that IBM actually copyrighted PL/1, PL/2, 
PL/3, ..., PL/60.  They just weren't too rigorous about enforcement.

A trademark is actually a good idea.  Had the DOD not trademarked the
name ``Ada'', then any random could come along, subset the language or
add features, and call it an ``Ada'' compiler.  By trademarking the name,
the DOD can require all Ada compilers must implement the full language,
and pass the certification test.  The TRAC string processing language 
(circa mid '60s) also was trademarked.

Protecting the language from butchery by randoms is a good thing.  (Note: 
this is not the same thing as letting an ANSI committee ``standardize'' 
it.  ANSI committees are frequently worse than the randoms.)


Jonathan A. Chandross
Internet: jac@paul.rutgers.edu
UUCP: rutgers!paul.rutgers.edu!jac