4 ms·

Programming languages 'do not enjoy copyright protection,' EU court says

46 points by potomak 14y ago

tomrod 14y ago
Strange. I could see implementations not being patentable, but the creation of a programming language could and should be copyrightable as a whole, not as individual pieces. Python is usable, whereas LolCats exists mainly as expression. But I'm not a programmer--what do y'all think?
- exDM69 14y ago
  This would put us in a situation where we would have lawyers comparing programming languages and assessing their novelty w.r.t. intellectual property violations. We do _not_ want to get into this situation. It might end up in a situation where two languages are similar on the inside but there's a minor change to make it incompatible but non-infringing. Not ideal. Many programming languages are very similar to each other and it's very hard to differentiate. Python, Perl, Lua and Ruby are very similar on the inside, despite their syntactic differences. If one of them was patented or copyrighted, it could hinder the others.
  - tomrod 14y ago
    I agree with what you're saying. Does my point make sense? some clarification here: I'm saying copyright the entire item, which to me means the syntax. The implementation ought not to be patentable due to prior art. I mean, Lovelace, Church, Turing, Gauss and Euclid have never been paid royalties for building the foundation on which computing lies. Why should Oracle be thus complicated.
    - exDM69 14y ago
      > I'm saying copyright the entire item, which to me means the syntax. A programming language is so much more than just the syntax. The syntax is only skin-deep, what matters (and where the differences are) is the semantics of the language. The problem in copyrighting the syntax of a language is that it's very trivial to whip up another syntax. For example, JavaScript has the regular syntax but you can also write JavaScript using the CoffeeScript or ParenScript syntax while having the same semantics. So if someone were to copyright a language syntax, it would be very easy to write an almost compatible language with a minor change to the syntax. The new language would be (source level) incompatible, but in essence it would be the same thing. The only reason for adding this incompatibility would be to avoid IP restrictions. That's what we don't want, similar but incompatible languages with the only motivation being keeping lawyers happy.
- windsurfer 14y ago
  Imagine for a second that someone had French copywritten. Programming languages are simply ways of communicating to a computer, and are very similar to spoken languages. As a consequence, no one could speak it without having a license, you couldn't invent new words for it, and you certainly could get sued for writing anything down. It would be madness.
pella 14y ago
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3918443 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3918443 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3918912 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3918912
Craiggybear 14y ago
Programmiing languages are languages - they are vehicles for the dissemination of knowledge. Like English, Spanish, French, etc. Naturally they can't or shouldn't be copyrightable. Algorithms, on the other hand ...
altrego99 14y ago
In my business I need to work with SAS. So let me offer some personal opinions what it really is. It's one of those things where I fail to understand why corporates still choose to spend money on. As a "programing language" it's ridiculously easy to recreate with simple (though occasionally inconsistent) C like syntax. It is sold as a statistical analysis framework. While it can do regression fine, you have to pay additional money to get features like support for decision trees, and still it does not support the proven machine learning techniques (Random Forest, SVMs). I think SAS is a dinosaur existing because of its legacy hold, trying to desperately grab the last straws - like these lawsuits, and writing disparaging papers comparing SAS with free alternatives like MapReduce & R.

46 points by potomak 14y ago

Strange. I could see implementations not being patentable, but the creation of a programming language could and should be copyrightable as a whole, not as individual pieces. Python is usable, whereas LolCats exists mainly as expression. But I'm not a programmer--what do y'all think?

exDM69 14y ago
This would put us in a situation where we would have lawyers comparing programming languages and assessing their novelty w.r.t. intellectual property violations. We do _not_ want to get into this situation. It might end up in a situation where two languages are similar on the inside but there's a minor change to make it incompatible but non-infringing. Not ideal. Many programming languages are very similar to each other and it's very hard to differentiate. Python, Perl, Lua and Ruby are very similar on the inside, despite their syntactic differences. If one of them was patented or copyrighted, it could hinder the others.
- tomrod 14y ago
  I agree with what you're saying. Does my point make sense? some clarification here: I'm saying copyright the entire item, which to me means the syntax. The implementation ought not to be patentable due to prior art. I mean, Lovelace, Church, Turing, Gauss and Euclid have never been paid royalties for building the foundation on which computing lies. Why should Oracle be thus complicated.
  - exDM69 14y ago
    > I'm saying copyright the entire item, which to me means the syntax. A programming language is so much more than just the syntax. The syntax is only skin-deep, what matters (and where the differences are) is the semantics of the language. The problem in copyrighting the syntax of a language is that it's very trivial to whip up another syntax. For example, JavaScript has the regular syntax but you can also write JavaScript using the CoffeeScript or ParenScript syntax while having the same semantics. So if someone were to copyright a language syntax, it would be very easy to write an almost compatible language with a minor change to the syntax. The new language would be (source level) incompatible, but in essence it would be the same thing. The only reason for adding this incompatibility would be to avoid IP restrictions. That's what we don't want, similar but incompatible languages with the only motivation being keeping lawyers happy.
windsurfer 14y ago
Imagine for a second that someone had French copywritten. Programming languages are simply ways of communicating to a computer, and are very similar to spoken languages. As a consequence, no one could speak it without having a license, you couldn't invent new words for it, and you certainly could get sued for writing anything down. It would be madness.

pella 14y ago

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3918443 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3918443 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3918912 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3918912

Craiggybear 14y ago

Programmiing languages are languages - they are vehicles for the dissemination of knowledge. Like English, Spanish, French, etc. Naturally they can't or shouldn't be copyrightable. Algorithms, on the other hand ...

altrego99 14y ago

In my business I need to work with SAS. So let me offer some personal opinions what it really is. It's one of those things where I fail to understand why corporates still choose to spend money on. As a "programing language" it's ridiculously easy to recreate with simple (though occasionally inconsistent) C like syntax. It is sold as a statistical analysis framework. While it can do regression fine, you have to pay additional money to get features like support for decision trees, and still it does not support the proven machine learning techniques (Random Forest, SVMs). I think SAS is a dinosaur existing because of its legacy hold, trying to desperately grab the last straws - like these lawsuits, and writing disparaging papers comparing SAS with free alternatives like MapReduce & R.