4 ms·

If that is true, does that mean anyone will be free to implement any programming language developed by anyone, regardless of the designers' wishes? Looks like

If that is true, does that mean anyone will be free to implement any programming language developed by anyone, regardless of the designers' wishes? Looks like there be will no monetary incentive in inventing a very innovative languages when the big guys can just come in and re-implement it and not pay a cent.

fluidcruft 15y ago
Someone should ask Wolfram what he thinks about this. ;)
koenigdavidmj 15y ago
There is already a trademark-based restriction on the name Java. You can't call your system Java unless it passes the TCK. You can't pass the TCK without signing some sort of license about what your implementation can and can't do. TeX has the same concept with the TRIP test.
nknight 15y ago
Ignoring the first-to-market incentive (which is substantial), is there any monetary incentive now? Has anyone else ever tried to make a business out of somehow "licensing" a general-purpose programming language minus implementation? The concept doesn't even make sense. Do you pay someone to let you speak English? Why would you pay someone to let you "speak" any other language?
- arihant 15y ago
  What if I ship a language with implementation but would like to prevent others from implementing it? Sometimes language implementations are the product - things like R, Matlab and Mathematica are close examples. What if I figured out a much better programming language for Finance software and would like to prevent every other company from implementing it? This debate is far more complex than what people think.
  - chimeracoder 15y ago
    R's source code is released under the GPL. MATLAB has a GNU-licensed equivalent (GNU Octave), which has been around since 1988. How could you patent a language? What are you patenting? The compiler/interpreter? The context-free grammar (assuming it has one)? The language specification? If the specification, then you really mean a copyright, not a patent, because a language specification is just a description of a language, and you can't patent that. But just because you've placed a copyright on your description doesn't mean you hold a copyright on anything that anybody creates after having read that description - that would be ludicrous! Sure, we can talk about the compiler/interpreter itself, but that doesn't prevent someone else from going ahead and creating a completely separate compiler that implements the same exact specification (look at the GNU Compiler Collection, more commonly known as gcc).
  - dminor 15y ago
    What you want and what the law allows may be two different things. Ideas are not subject to copyright. Specific implementations might be.
  - orangecat 15y ago
    The value of Mathematica is not that "Integrate[Sin[x^2], x]" is especially brilliant syntax.
    - fluidcruft 15y ago
      Wolfram Research is infamous for claiming copyright to the language of Mathematica threatening to sue the University of California. They have also have a long history of causing automatic translators and shims for converting Mathematica syntax code into other systems to disappear (supposedly based on the language copyright).
      - nknight 15y ago
        Do you have any meaningful citation for these events? The only mention I can find of the incident you seem to be alluding to is a brief, vague, and un-sourced mention in a text file dating to 1991[1]. I'd be entirely unsurprised to learn that there is far more nuance to the story than what you and said file state, or that the incident was largely the result of a game of telephone. [1] http://progfree.org/Copyright/against-user-interface-copyright.txt http://progfree.org/Copyright/against-user-interface-copyrig...
baddox 15y ago
> does that mean anyone will be free to implement any programming language developed by anyone, regardless of the designers' wishes? Not completely regardless of the designers' wishes. If the language designer never publishes, then he or she won't have to worry about re-implementations. Publishing is by definition (and should be) a relinquishment of some amount of control.
modeless 15y ago
"monetary incentive in inventing a very innovative languages" I will be astonished if you can cite a single example of a programming language whose inventor was inspired by the possibility of language licensing revenue. Note that implementation licensing revenue does not count, as implementations are covered by copyright.

fluidcruft 15y ago

Someone should ask Wolfram what he thinks about this. ;)

koenigdavidmj 15y ago

There is already a trademark-based restriction on the name Java. You can't call your system Java unless it passes the TCK. You can't pass the TCK without signing some sort of license about what your implementation can and can't do. TeX has the same concept with the TRIP test.

nknight 15y ago

Ignoring the first-to-market incentive (which is substantial), is there any monetary incentive now? Has anyone else ever tried to make a business out of somehow "licensing" a general-purpose programming language minus implementation? The concept doesn't even make sense. Do you pay someone to let you speak English? Why would you pay someone to let you "speak" any other language?

arihant 15y ago
What if I ship a language with implementation but would like to prevent others from implementing it? Sometimes language implementations are the product - things like R, Matlab and Mathematica are close examples. What if I figured out a much better programming language for Finance software and would like to prevent every other company from implementing it? This debate is far more complex than what people think.
- chimeracoder 15y ago
  R's source code is released under the GPL. MATLAB has a GNU-licensed equivalent (GNU Octave), which has been around since 1988. How could you patent a language? What are you patenting? The compiler/interpreter? The context-free grammar (assuming it has one)? The language specification? If the specification, then you really mean a copyright, not a patent, because a language specification is just a description of a language, and you can't patent that. But just because you've placed a copyright on your description doesn't mean you hold a copyright on anything that anybody creates after having read that description - that would be ludicrous! Sure, we can talk about the compiler/interpreter itself, but that doesn't prevent someone else from going ahead and creating a completely separate compiler that implements the same exact specification (look at the GNU Compiler Collection, more commonly known as gcc).
- dminor 15y ago
  What you want and what the law allows may be two different things. Ideas are not subject to copyright. Specific implementations might be.
- orangecat 15y ago
  The value of Mathematica is not that "Integrate[Sin[x^2], x]" is especially brilliant syntax.
  - fluidcruft 15y ago
    Wolfram Research is infamous for claiming copyright to the language of Mathematica threatening to sue the University of California. They have also have a long history of causing automatic translators and shims for converting Mathematica syntax code into other systems to disappear (supposedly based on the language copyright).
    - nknight 15y ago
      Do you have any meaningful citation for these events? The only mention I can find of the incident you seem to be alluding to is a brief, vague, and un-sourced mention in a text file dating to 1991[1]. I'd be entirely unsurprised to learn that there is far more nuance to the story than what you and said file state, or that the incident was largely the result of a game of telephone. [1] http://progfree.org/Copyright/against-user-interface-copyright.txt http://progfree.org/Copyright/against-user-interface-copyrig...

baddox 15y ago

> does that mean anyone will be free to implement any programming language developed by anyone, regardless of the designers' wishes? Not completely regardless of the designers' wishes. If the language designer never publishes, then he or she won't have to worry about re-implementations. Publishing is by definition (and should be) a relinquishment of some amount of control.

modeless 15y ago

"monetary incentive in inventing a very innovative languages" I will be astonished if you can cite a single example of a programming language whose inventor was inspired by the possibility of language licensing revenue. Note that implementation licensing revenue does not count, as implementations are covered by copyright.