🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Jul24.002547.25596@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
trier@po.CWRU.Edu writes: 
>This brings up some questions I've had about "look and feel".  Does this
>mean that AT&T can sue the creators of C++ compilers that don't license
>AT&T's cfront?  They are, after all, duplicating the user interface section,
>the C++ language, that is inherent in making cfront what it is.

It's not clear how you can copyright the look and feel of a programming
language, which according to any standard definition, is the set of
strings generated by the grammar. Certainly the defining grammar can be
copyrighted, but one can write an equivalent grammar for any programming
language which is genuinely different (i.e., not simply a textual
replacement).

Since copyright protects `works' (e.g., programs, screens, books), and
patents protect `mechanisms' (e.g., the famous combination gun'n'plough
which was patented in the 19th century to protect farmers from raiders
who were stupid enough to attack from the direction in which the plough
was facing, or the setuid bit), the only way I can think of to protect a
programming language is via a patent on the defining report. 

Someone proposing to copyright a language ought therefore to be required
to deposit a copy of the language with the appropriate authorities,
namely the Library of Congress in the US. Since real programming
languages (or even dBASE IV) are infinite, even the postage costs will
be somewhat large :-)

It amazes me that the Ashton-Tate suit hasn't yet been thrown out. 

--
\    Vincent Manis <manis@cs.ubc.ca>      "There is no law that vulgarity and
 \   Department of Computer Science      literary excellence cannot coexist."
 /\  University of British Columbia                        -- A. Trevor Hodge
/  \ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 (604) 228-2394