🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Jul24.002547.25596@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> trier@po.CWRU.Edu writes:
>In article <1990Jul23.205924.378@Solbourne.COM> imp@dancer.Solbourne.COM (Warner Losh) writes:
>>Besides, people aren't taking Lotus' implementation, they are copying
>>the command set used by it.  Kinda like trying to copyright the look
>>and feel of 'C', but with nastier consequences.
>
>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.

Your reasoning is a bit off track. 

Languages are not applicable unless they have specifically been
registered for protection.  Most Languages (ie > 95% [ not counting
the reams of stupid proprietary languages that major companies
develope for internal use so employess could not leave with
source] ) are 
public domain.  AT&T never copyrighted C or C++.  
Nothing prevents anyone from implementing C or C++ just as
long as no AT&T source was used.

The only language that I know of which was protected (and this
has just changed as it was recently released into P.D) was
eiffel.

For example (albeit a stupid one),  If I one day decide
that I want to clone `gcc`.  Since the formal specifications
for how gcc works (ie language constructs, option switches,etc)
are available to the public, I can go ahead and create a
gcc clone that will accept the same input and provide
the same functionality.  I can not be sued unless 
I used code from gcc source.

>
>-- 
>Stephen Trier                              Case Western Reserve University
>Home: sct%seldon@scl.cwru.edu              Information Network Services
>Work: trier@cwlim.ins.cwru.edu
>                 I do _not_ speak for the University.

Ouij