On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 16:00:31 -0700 Sean Kellogg wrote: > On Wednesday 19 March 2008 03:10:07 pm Francesco Poli wrote: > > I don't think that copyright laws give you the right to control > > distribution of "Scripts", that is to say, works written in your > > programming language. > > For instance, I don't think I need permission from anyone in order to > > write (original) C++ code and distribute it as I like. > > This is an interesting claim and I think is far from clear cut. If I develop > a > comprehensive grammar and syntax for a language (programming or otherwise) > what elements are required for others to use "speak" it and to what extent > can I protect/restrict the use of those elements? The first obvious answer is > that the language is an idea, and thus patentable. I don't think that's a > point of contention here, but worth noting that one can certainly restrict > the use of a language via a patent.
This is only true in those (insane) jurisdictions where "ideas" are patentable. That is to say, where software patents and the like are valid. Examples of those jurisdictions are, IIUC: the USA (but there are plans to push for a political change in the USA), Japan, Australia, ... Anyway, as you yourself acknowledge, I was talking about copyright laws only. > > But, if we keep our analysis to just copyright protection, I'm still not sure > it's a slam dunk depending on factors. Here I'm thinking of libraries which > may be necessary for the script to run... like libc. Sure, I can just write C > code, but it's pretty useless without libc... For the sake of clarity, I was talking about writing and distributing (original) C++ source code. I didn't (on purpose) consider the distribution of compiled *and linked* code. It is my understanding that writing source code intended to link with a library, does not, per se, create a derivative work of a specific implementation of that library, as long as you only adhere to an API. In your example, please note that there are many differently-licensed implementations of the C standard library. If I write C code by only adhering to the standard C library API, then I don't think I'm restricted by the license of any libc implementation... > and if I incorporate a version > of libc with a restrictive license, then I'm certainly going to have to > comply with the copyright restrictions of that license. Let's not open the can of worms of static/dynamic linking versus derivative work creation, please! ;-) > > There's even the question of how someone goes about learning the language... > presumably by example (that's how I've learned most other languages). By reading a book which explains the grammar, syntax, and semantics of the language? The book will probably include examples, but I don't think that copying one line of code from an example (especially when that line is the only good way to use an instruction or to call a library function) creates a derivative work... Hence, in most cases, your code won't be a derivative work of the examples you once studied. > Can I > create a work that is not derivative of those examples and thus under the > preview of copyright law? Is this e-mail message a derivative work of the example texts I once studied on my English grammar and conversation textbooks? I don't think so... Well, at least, I hope it's not! ;-) > > This would have made a fun topic to write about in law school :) IANAL, nor did I attend law school, hence I can only try to imagine how fun it would have been... My other disclaimers still apply: TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpy9ElkqjkA3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
