> Can you give a source for this? I'd like to know why CFML can't be > copywrited. > I don't think CFML is copyrighted. I believe that CFML is simply a syntax that is implemented by a copyrighted work. Thus, the implementation is protected, but not the syntax. As it is, the full syntax must be disclosed publicly if you expect anyone to be able to program with it.
> So they should stick to the official version. The one put out by MM. In > this, BD is in the wrong. They want to claim to be a CF parser but the > second they add in their own functionality then they're something else. > I think you are confused about the term parser. BlueDragon is an implementation of CFML. As such it includes a CFML parser, but it really much more. > ECMAScript that's not implimented on most browsers, that's still not > standardized across browsers and is just a name with no juice? That > ECMAScript? > Whether or not browsers implement the standard correctly is a different debate than whether or not ECMAScript is a standard. > Or sue. Or ask nicely for the others to play by the language rules. > I really doubt they would want to sue. > Of course it can. Who said he had the right to ring it. I'd love to hear > what a copywrite lawyer has to say here. > This is a free market; New Atlanta has all the right in the world. -Matt ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
