Slashdot Mirror
Oracle and Google Spar Over Whether Programming Languages Can Be Copyrighted
pcritter writes "With the Oracle v. Google trial date set for next Monday, the Judge has asked Google and Oracle to take a position on whether a programming language is copyrightable. This presumably relates to whether Google violated copyright by using a variant of the Java language and its APIs in the Android framework. Oracle, who thinks it can be, has used J.R.R. Tolkein's Elvish language as an examples (PDF) of a language that can be copyrighted. Google disagrees (PDF)."
Just don't expect anyone to take interest in your language if you copyright it.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Didn't Sun already win this case against Microsoft?
If they were copyrighted, wouldn't the assembly and machine language folks get the last laugh? I mean, copyright lasts nearly forever now in the United States and the first guy who thought up what to call registers or how to represent them in a language or what shift left should look like or even the people who came up with RISC, CISC, etc would be laughing all the way to the bank ... right? I mean, even though it might just be a handful of instructions that interact with hardware, wouldn't this position make it just as copyrighted as the higher level languages which, in the end, depend on this stuff to interact with the hardware?
My work here is dung.
A! Elbereth Gilthoniel!
silivren penna míriel
o menel aglar elenath,
Gilthoniel, A! Elbereth!
We still remember, we who dwell
In this far land beneath the trees
The starlight on the western seas
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
I can see how the runes for Elvish could be copyrighted and how the text of the Java langauge specification can be copyrighted, but the language itself is much slipperier. Programming languages are often defined by a set of syntax rules written in BNF. But the BNF is not the language. What is, exactly? Not easy to define, let alone copyright.
Except that the title of this article clearly says "copyright" and the 20 year limit is what patents are in the states (although extensions and whatnot make that mean jack anyway). Enjoy your "one generation" graph.
My work here is dung.
Since Java borrows a lot of syntax from from C/C++ wouldn't that make it a derivative work ;)
The time and effort (sweat of the brow) argument doesn't matter in the US. That's not why copyright exists here, and does not entitle you to special government protection.
The technical definition of the Java language is "the set of all Java programs".
This is an infinite set.
Therefore, it cannot be fixed in a tangible medium.
Therefore, it it is ineligible for copyright protection.
When it came to SQL, Larry decided it was easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
Oracle doesn't care about that stuff. They will say just about anything so that Larry Ellison can buy another yacht.
Uhhh well, they should. I mean Oracle's PL/SQL is an extension of SQL which, would be copyrighted by someone from the long long ago. And if that person wanted to, they could basically say "Yeah, you know that language that your bread and butter runs on? It's infringing on my copyrights so you owe me ... gosh I don't know ... a hundred billion trillion dollars?"
...
And, like every other language, PL/SQL has to be turned into machine language at some point
My work here is dung.
Oracle, who thinks it can be, has used J.R.R. Tolkein's Elvish language as an example of a language that can be copyrighted.
Sure, but I wasn't aware that was a *programming* language.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The Java language took time and effort to develop, so the original author may be granted (by the government) a monopoly over his creation for 20 years. Then it falls into public domain.
Where did the 20 years come from? That's how long it should be - one generation.
First off, copyright does not need to be one generation long. Copyright's purpose is to create incentives to create content. To do that, assuming your business model is to sell content and not its complements, copyright only needs to be long enough to create a reasonable expectation of profit from works. I would say 10 years would be more than enough for that in most areas. Copyright is not supposed to be a means to do something once and then make money from it forever. Second off, a language is a means of expression not a expression itself. I can understand copyrighting an implementation of an API but I cannot understand copyrighting the API itself.
Of course Java can't be copyrighted, but Go, Renderscript and the Android library interface can be copyrighted?
IANAL, but on the other hand, if no computer language or library API can enjoy copyright protection, then it appears to me that it doesn't have GPL or Creative Commons protection either (since being required to follow these licences follows from the copyright holder's discretion)...
Be careful what you wish for google...
Thing is, while some third-party books do claim to "Teach ... Java for Android", as far as I know Google has never claimed that Dalvik is Java. Whereas for a typical embrace and extend, be it Kerberos or Java, Microsoft did claim that their extended fork was still Java, and marketed it as such. The Microsoft lawsuit was really about the use of the Java trademark (hence why Microsoft renamed their product J++), and not a copyright infringement case. So that case doesn't really apply as precedent here and it would seem that Oracle is overreaching.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
I'm totally baffled by this and would like an explanation of how a language could possibly be copyrighted. Is Tolkein's Elvish language copyrighted, and if so, what does that mean? I can understand specific phrases from his books being copyrighted, but if I translated this post into Elvish, does Tolkein's estate suddenly own the copyright to this post? Or what?
Sorry, but the idea of owning the copyright to a language seems silly. I might understand patenting a use of a language or patenting a method of translation, but the language itself? Doesn't copyright need to apply to a specific expression? Like... I can copyright the image of a painting, but I can't copyright paint.
You are making up the law. Good luck with that. You might have to start your own country to make it stick.
As far as I know, the question of whether a language can be copyrighted has never been tried in court, making this is a landmark case. Now "obviously" a language is functional and thus not copyrightable as an original creative work. But that is just my opinion as a reasonable individual with an interest in human progress. Whether or not the US courts are of a mind to act in the interest of human progress, and if I may say it, according to the intentions of the founders, is the burning question.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
In the US only purely creative work can be copyrighted. Basically you can only copyright something if it has no practical application. This means that literature movies and music can be copyrighted but clothing, recipes and industrial design cannot. A fictional language (such as Klingon) could be argued to fall under the realm of copyright because it is not really practical. Google has a fairly strong case that a programming language is not copyrightable. The libraries written using that programming language in both compiled and uncompiled form would fall under copyright though.
I suppose lawyers have an ethical duty to argue every point that reasonably could help their client, but this is silly. I really like the comments in a couple of the footnotes in Google's response:
Similarly, fictional languages such as Na’vi and Dothraki cannot be copyrighted. While the film Avatar and the television series Game of Thrones are copyrightable (including the portions in the fictional Na’vi and Dothraki languages), and while, for example, a dictionary or grammar textbook for either language would be copyrightable, the languages themselves are not. Oracle asks why copyright should not protect such languages, see Oracle 4/5/12 Br. [Dkt. 859] at 9; the answer is that Section 102(b) says that they are not protected. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that allowing copyright owners to control who can express themselves in these languages would further the aims of copyright law.
Umm, duh. Do they really want to argue that, say, stating "Your mother is ugly" or some other random sentence in, say, Dothraki is a public performance of a copyrighted work? That's what it would have to be if the language itself were copyrightable.
Even clearer, though:
Oracle also argues that a computer language can be “original, text-based, and capable of fixation,” and thus that it must be copyrightable. See Oracle 4/5/12 Br. [Dkt. 859] at 9. First, Section 102(b) bars copyright protection for “original works of authorship” that fall within its enumerated classes of exclusion. See 17 U.S.C. 102(b). Thus, the fact that a system is original, text-based and fixed does not mean that Section 102(b) does not apply. Second, a language cannot be fixed. Certainly, a description of a language (e.g., a specification) can be fixed. A computer program written using the language (e.g., the Gmail application on Android phones) or an implementation of a language (e.g., a compiler or interpreter) can be fixed. But none of those things is “the language,” any more than a dictionary “is” English, Das Boot “is” German, or a C compiler “is” the C programming language. See Baker, 101 U.S. at 102 (“But' there is a clear distinction between the book, as such, and the art which it is intended to illustrate. The mere statement of the proposition is so evident, that it requires hardly any argument to support it.”); cf. René Magritte, La trahison des images.
Exactly. How can you write down a "language"? You can describe it. You can list the allowable words and explain how they can and cannot be put together, but such a description isn't a language. You can use it. You can create prose, poetry, or, computer programs with it, expressing and fixing your own ideas in the constructs provided by the language, but an expression in a language isn't the language.
A language is about as pure an abstract idea as I can imagine, and ideas are not copyrightable, only expressions.
(Disclaimer: I work for Google, but have nothing to do with any of this Java folderol, other than using the language occasionally. I'm a programmer but not a language expert and would not be qualified to offer expert testimony on this topic, even if I were asked to, which I haven't been. Other than the quotes, the above is my own opinions, nothing more. In this case it appears that they align closely with Google's officially-stated opinions, however!)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I have to admit, I'm impressed with the judge's question. I'd agree that this is really what's at the heart of the matter, and I'm glad that the judge is asking it. It certainly seems like he's taken the time to do his homework into programming languages and computing.
---- I'll take you in a Hunt deathmatch any day.
What about the language should be considered copyrightable? The keywords? Because Java looks a lot like many other languages. Perhaps the creators of those languages should sue Oracle for Copyright Infringement, then. Oracle's class and function layout looks a LOT like C and C++.
Is it the standard library? Would a clean room implementation of a published API be considered copyright infringement? I think there are precedents that it would not, at least going back to the IBM PC BIOS reverse-engineering.
Is it the idea of object orientation? That was around long before Sun released Java. I have a LISP textbook I got in the '80s that showed a lisp program doing object-oriented kinds of things with lisp data structures.
Attempting to copyright any of these things would run you afoul of the people who actually invented them. In theory you could patent aspects of your language (And they probably did) but doesn't last nearly as long as copyright would.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Hmmmmm...... I do believe Java is copyrighted. I guess that's why it never took off
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
I hate oracle. I hate oracle at work. I hate reading about oracle. I hate that oracle is now in control of Java. Oracle is just like Sun, only the exact opposite.
And in one fel swoop, this case has gone from simple money grabbing to downright surreal. To decide whether a language itself can be copyright-able is going to be incredibly significant, regardless of which way the final decision goes, and I'm believe it was unwise for Oracle to even raise this issue.
If a programming language cannot be copyrighted, then their whole argument goes down the tubes and they can potentially lose a lot more than just this lawsuit. They could conceivably lose control of java.
If a programming language CAN be copyrighted, I expect to see a flurry of lawsuits as different language authors start suing one another for "stealing" parts of "their" language. The vast majority, if not all, of java syntax is directly lifted from other languages. There is absolutely nothing unique about Java's grammar.
I am going to be very interested now in the outcome of this case.
Is it still copyrightable if thousands of people learn to speak it as a secondary, or even sometimes PRIMARY language?
And at that point, what about cultural customs and likenesses (Since obviously the same people who learn to speak klingon fluently would also probably wish to own bat'leths, study klingon martial arts, and eventually have headplate prosthetics surgically installed.)
Seriously, I'd love to know.
Also why lucas can get a trademark or whatever on 'droid' even though it's pretty obviously a contraction of android and thus should be paying royalties to the estate of Asimov. :D
Its true that you can copyright a language. But to use the Languages of Middle-Earth as an example is not the best argument. The Tolkien Languages' copyrights are not heavily enforced. For instance the word "Orc", decidedly a Tolkien invention, is used widely by many different fantasy franchises.
The argument in my mind is not weather a Programming Language can be copyrighted, but whether they should be. Or rather, where do you draw the line of fair use.
One way or another, Oracle does need to be careful how they tread here, since Java IS a heavily derivative work itself.
~theCzar
If a computer language can by copyrighted does that imply that a natural language can also be coyprighted ?
What about mathematics ? Can the language of mathematics be copyrighted ?
Okay, even if you could copyright a programming language, which would make the language pointless except for use by the owner, once you deem something open source that makes copyrighting it not an option. That is like a candy store owner saying "Here little boy would you like a free candy bar" the little boy says "Sure I'll take a free candy bar." Then the owner calls security and says that the little boy stole the candy bar and demands payment. I CALL SHENANIGANS!
Uh, I thought Java was open source now...
Regardless of if they can copyright Java.... did they?
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
They say it's Android and you can program for it using the Java language.
They don't claim to have 100% compatibility with the Java platform.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
The very concept of a programming language that fulfills a particular need (portability, for example) is the idea. The creation of Java, and all the symbols and names of the language, is an expression of that idea. The creation of another language that operates similarly, but sufficiently different in symbols and names to be clear that it is not a derived work (for example, the Forth language), but is a new and original expression, could be an expression of that same idea (though not exactly in this case). So I'm afraid that Oracle, as much as I hate it, may be right on this one.
While I believe that it can be argued that programs written in Java are not expressions of Java, the difficulty is whether the expression of a compiler containing the same collection of symbols and names is, or is not, a derived work. I believe that it is ... because it cannot be shown that the set of symbols and names came from another source or is an original creation. We know it came from Java.
A language may also be patentable (e.g. this set of components, symbols, names, and semantics, is an innovative solution to that problem), especially under our messed up patent system. But that's not arguable in this case as far as I know.
Maybe Google should just shift Android over to Go or Dart or something.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Now "obviously" a language is functional and thus not copyrightable as an original creative work
Elvish is not "functional", and thus is copyrightable.
Java is just a special collection of English words, and thus is not copyrightable any more than SQL is. Any specific Java program might be copyrightable.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
So if this holds water and people abroad follow these news, they can also start their own interesting cases of litigation, where it goes even beyond computer languages.
How about Hebrew? There are about 8 million people around the world who speak it and it's quite artificial. I am not sure that his descendants will go as far as declare copyright (didn't Tolkien's relatives do just that), but the possibility would be there.
Could it mean that 8 million around the world, and specifically 5 million in Israel would be on a hook for royalty payments? After all, many of them speak it on everyday basis.
You can't handle the truth.
Imagine if France claimed copyright over Quebec or Spain claimed copyright over
Mexico. When you create a language you expect it to spread over many regions
in the name of trade and politics. Same applies to a computing language that
spread because its popular, politically correct, and/or simply better.
Spoken languages evolve over time, likewise computing languages. The latter
however aim to find consistency to avoid code portability issues after the initial
adoption period. Still that does not entitle copyright; language has to be able
to evolve to remain active, consider Cobol like Latin.
If you copyright a language spoken, written, or computing, no one would use it.
Copyright includes the notion of derivative works. Java is an excellent example of a derivative work, borrowing most of its core syntax from C. Oracle is effectively proposing that Dennis Ritchie's estate owns a huge swath of the language space; Objective C, ECMAScript, Java, C++, C# -- a big chunk of commercial programming is done in languages that are not even distant derivations, but nearly direct copies.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I believe they lost this fight.
you can only copyright something if it has no practical application
So why the exception for code libraries? or applications?
FWIW, at least in the C programming case, the ISO/IEC claims copyright of the specifcation itself. ISO/IEC sells the specification (called 14882:2011) and says you can't copy the specification without a license from them.
Of course, the question is not if someone copies the java (or c) language spec word-for-word (e.g, photo or electronic copy), but if someone made a derivative of this work (say an implementation with its own reference or subset specification) if it subject to being considered having a derivative work liability of the underlying original work. Ironically, if google did not make a derivative java, it might actually be in a better position as most of java itself likely considered to be derivative and the non-derivative parts (say the stuff java borrowed from c) are not subject to copyright protection and if they did not copy the specification itself.
IANAL, maybe yes, maybe no, but my original point was to be careful what you wish for as the same thing could be done on to you...
If the purpose of copyright was to have an incentive for creating content then it would provide means by which the creators of such content were guaranteed payment or share of any profits.
However, the purpose of copyright is to maintain the cosy relationship between state and publishers and establishing control of channels, guaranteeing profitability for publishers and influence for the state.
Incentives for creation is just an excuse; there is and always has been a vast overproduction of content which ensures that the creator will always be the weak party in a deal, the creator needs the publisher, the publisher rarely needs a specific creator but can shop around among the piles of material by those willing to get screwed.
If it was actually about incentives the duration would be irrelevant, the creators would get paid from an incentive system (for example financed through a tax on the copies produced and sold by publishers) and it would be tuned to deliver the optimum incentive rather than a timeframe that is utterly useless for determining profitability.
Surely this isn't an argument Oracle wants to win?
Since they'll be on the hook for far more than they'll win if their argument becomes the legal interpretation...
IMHE it is every bit as functional as Lisp.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
hmm.. IIRC Microsoft added Windows specific stuff.. thus crippling Java's cross-platform strengths.
That maybe true, but in common usage, people don't differentiate between the two. If someone told me they wrote a program in Java, it would be more than reasonable if I assume it would work across multiple platforms.
Recall that copyright is automatic, compulsory, and retroactive. All existing computer languages that have not been explicitly placed in the public domain would be clouded. Ada might be safe, but I not much else.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
For displaying copyright infringing 6502 mnemonic assembler in 1984's Terminator.
- And he thought Harlen Ellison was a troll.
Which was the point. In order to say you were "Java" you couldn't bastardize the language/API in such a way it didn't run anywhere else.
If creating the compiler is a violation of copyright, assuming a programming language is found to be copyrightable, then the java compiler, which is not written in java, but c would be violating somebody else's copyright. So, if Oracle wins, because even a compiler is considered a derived work, then they themselves will be guilty, too.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hi -
I suppose this is ancient history to a lot of people here, but some of these issues came up long ago when in 1988 Ashton-Tate (at the time one of the largest PC software sellers, along with Lotus and Microsoft) filed a lawsuit against Fox Software (based in Ohio) over their "clone" software FoxBASE which later was upgraded to FoxPro. Although both products had interactive front ends, they were essentially based on the large English-like dBASE programming language that had evolved from CP/M based dBASE II some years before. (There were some other "clone" dBASE products such as Clipper or dbXL, soon all dBASE-like products were often referred to as "Xbase") In general the various "clone" products supported most of the Ashton-Tate dBASE language syntax, but also added their own extra enhancements and features. So unlike C or C++, there was no real official standard.
Anyway, in 1991 Borland wanted to acquire Ashton-Tate (which they did) but supposedly one of the conditions imposed by the U.S. Justice department (based on a concern that one company would dominate the PC database software market) was that they drop the lawsuit against Fox Software. They did indeed finally drop the lawsuit, but probably not too many people know that Borland delayed actually filing the papers that ended the lawsuit for a long time.
Then, in 1992, Microsoft acquired Fox Software (making many of the Fox Software people millionaires about five years later based on their getting M$FT stock options at just the right time), the dBASE / Xbase language slowly faded away, and now 20 years later the whole thing is largely forgotten.
You can read a little more about the lawsuit here:
http://www.foxprohistory.org/ashton_sues_fox.htm
Finally, believe it or not, I still maintain one large FoxPro Windows 2.6 application to this day!
- TWR, Los Angeles, California
Maybe someone should point out to Oracle that the Oxford English Dictionary is a copyrighted work and yet people are free to use any of the language parts without violating copyright law. Likewise, even if Java is found to be copyrightable and actually was copyrighted, as a language, wouldn't people alsol be free to use any of the language parts without violating copyright law.
I'm pretty sure that language itself is not patentable, so if Oracle wins this case, they may effectively nullify any patents they have with Java.
"Shit just got real."
That fact that a creator chooses to use a publisher is hardly the fault of the copyright system. There are many creators that self-publish. As technology becomes cheaper, there will be less and less of a reason for creators to use publishers at all. If you choose to use a publisher, it was your decision to make. No one if forced to use a publisher.
EBNF can be defined in itself, so maybe it is copyrightable?
But the specification is not the language. The specification is a description of the language, but that's not the same as the language itself. Anybody else is free to write their own specification that's functionally equivalent but described differently.
Of course, I'd argue that it's unreasonable and unethical to charge for access to an official standard (in the same way it would be unethical to charge for access to the text of a law), but that's a different discussion.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
In common usage, programmers do.
Users don't care what language their program is written in, so long as it works for them.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Worse.
If it looks similiar now equals copyright violation then SCO will go batshit on IBM and everyone who uses Linux. Could this be a real implication? Scary thought
If you take out if else fi and other structures in sh and bash in Linux then it isn't unix anymore. Sed, grep, and other long time Unix tools will be underfire for looking the same as I understand Oracle's definition of copyright.
MS and Oracle would surely join. Larry Elison would kill Andriod and force us to buy Windows or throw out that $1200 linux box for a $35,000 Oracle Solaris one with a $20,000 Oracle Database license we would not use anyway. MS and maybe Apple would surely fund such a move.
Lets hope I am wrong as this sounds very dangerous as Linux shares apis just like the java platform with unix ones in Solaris and Sco Unixware.
http://saveie6.com/
He explained how it is funny to him, maybe you should go back to reading classes.
mathematically, optimum profit for almost all case is 14 years.
I would be happy with a 10K 5 year extension twice, then a 50K extension every 5 years, twice. Revoke if the work stopped being available to the public at large.
-
Taking it to 34 years. But that's only going to happen to works that are turning a profit.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
False analogy, and terrible pun. Programming languages are not languages but standards. And, sadly, many standards are copyrighted, so I guess programming languages are also eligible.
"I assume it would work across multiple platforms"
then you would be foolish. Many Java application aren't cross platform.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If they were copyrighted, wouldn't the assembly and machine language folks get the last laugh? I mean, copyright lasts nearly forever now in the United States
If that is the case then I would be more worried that England will be suing for violation of copyright due to the US' use of an unauthorized derivative of English. ;-)
So not only does their own citation say that it is likely Elvish is not copyrightable, it also says that computer languages are not copyrightable – directly undermining Oracle's own specific case! Did the attorney who included this citation assume no one would check it? I expect this kind of practice from desperate college students, not high-priced corporate lawyers.
I have read through both of their statements and the arguements Oracle is presenting doesn't apply in this case. If I was speaking to my friend in Dathrakki or Clingon or any made up language, and we figured out a new way to improve gasoline effeciency in a car to 10,000 miles per gallon, then we own the design we came up with using that language. We aren't effectively making money off by selling the language itself, we simply had the idea in that language.
Why didn't Oracle sue over trademarks? It worked well for Sun v Microsoft.
In "Common" when humans say it uses Java they typically mean JavaScript. So to the Common Orc saying it's written in Java is meaningless babble. To a Common Programming Elf you'll get asked to clarify which you're using if there is any doubt.
I don't think there should be any extensions on copyright. If you can't a profit off something by the end of the copyright, you should consider going into another business. Also what do you mean by "optimum profit"? I would think optimum profit could only be accomplished if copyright would exist as long as the amount paid is greater than cost of supplying the copyrighted material.
If Java is copyrighted or not is irrelevant.
Google didn't "copy" Java, Google *uses*Java. It's not a "variant". It's Java that just runs on their own vm implementation, like other developers and vendors have done. It's an open specification. The only exclusive right Oracle has is to certify that a particular vm is Java(TM) compliant or not, but then Google doesn't need nor claim such certification at all.
Seems just corporate bullying, lawyers gone utter nuts.
True, but, OTOH, most legal remedies for copyright violations are not available (except in the case of live broadcasts, which have slightly different rules) unless the owner has registered the copyright before the lawsuit is initiated (or attempted to register the copyright and had the Copyright Office refuse the registration.) One of the requirements for a registration is deposit of one (or more, depending on the kind of work) copies of the copyrighted work with the copyright office.
Now, certainly, Oracle has no doubt registered the copyright on the Java language specification (which is a well-defined fixed-from expression in language of what Java does) and their Java language implementation (which again is a well-defined fixed-form expression.) But I'd like to see evidence that prior to filing suit against Google, they registered copyright on the Java language, as such. Particularly, I'd like to see the desposited copy of the language.
(Of course, no such thing exists, because a language is an abstraction and not something which could be set in fixed form and deposited; of course, the fact it is an abstraction that can't be set in fixed form is also among the reasons its outside the scope of copyright in the first place.)
The endless parade of Java security issues after all this time is inexcusable pretty much like the rest of Oracles "unbreakable" stack.
Larry needs to put his carbon fiber sailboats away and get his companies shit together.
If a language can be copyrighted, then it's the sort of thing of which there can be a copy. IANAL, but my understanding is that copies, for purposes of copyright law, are tangible objects, like pieces of paper with ink marks or CDs with etchings on them.
So what tangible object counts as a copy of, say, Java?
Here are three options:
1. A tangible copy of the source code of a program written in Java.
2. A tangible copy of a specification of Java.
3. A tangible copy of a Java compiler or interpreter.
Now, clearly neither 1 nor 3 is a copy of Java, since both contain copyrightable elements other than those from Java. At most, 1 and 3 are derived works from Java.
What about 2? I think that's the best bet. But 2 is a description of the Java language, and a description of a copyrightable work is not the same as the copyrightable work itself. Besides, a lot of creative work can go into a specification, and so a typical specification of Java can include copyrightable elements besides those of Java. So at most 2 is going to be a work derived from Java rather than a copy of Java.
So, it looks like a computer language is not something that there can be a copy of. But can copyright apply to something that cannot have a copy? Presumably not.
Here's an option, though. Maybe one could insist that a program in a language or a compiler or interpreter for it is a work derived from the specification of the language? Since specifications might be copyrightable, as they could have copyrightable elements, that might work. But it would be disastrous for everybody other than Prentice Hall, since then everybody who has a copy of a C or C++ compiler, or of the source code to a C or C++ program--and that, presumably, includes Oracle--is in violation of Prentice Hall's copyright on Kernighan and Ritchie's C book.
Even if programing languages were copyrightable, which I don't think they should be, Java has the specific problem that it is mostly a copy of C++ with things taken out itself. It would be a bit like copyrighting a cropped picture of the Mona Lisa as a new work.
Badger jism. A cookbook or a woodworking manual both have practical application, but if you cribbed either word for word in your own publication you'd be in deep doo-doo.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRAC_(programming_language)
TRAC is an interesting language. It a functional macro language and operates directly on strings, which are the only data type. It was also one of the first interactive languages to run on small computers, preceding BASIC.
Why is Snark Required?
define fictional language?
In the context of this story, one could argue that a language is "fictional" if it isn't mutually intelligible with any pre-1923 language. Quenya, Sindarin, and the Black Speech aren't.
They both agree that programming languages can be copyrighted. The argument is over whether or not APIs (the specifications on how to use the programming language via it's interfaces) are copyrightable, which they obviously are not.
It would be like trying to copyright the syntactical structure of a sentence for communicating between two humans.
I recall some discussion that Sun put IP protections on Java to prevent companies (hello Microsoft) from creating a non-compliant product and calling it Java, rather than using that IP to profit. It looks like Oracle is twisting the original intent. Besides, Java is hardly original, having drawn heavily on prior art from C++ and Ada. If Oracle succeeds in this, it would seem to open the door to claim copyright on entire natural languages like English and Chinese.
So who's going to be the Michael Ventris to provide the proper Quenya sound values for Linear A characters?
Gaar'gh! Everybody knows that Lisp and Elvish make more sense in the original Klingon!
Sincerely, go fuck yourself.
- Spoken as an owner of sun hardware, the unfortunate seeker of licenses or maintenance renewal on crystal ball and an infrequent user of Java. Oracle makes Microsoft look like Sister Theresa.
No one who has ever worked with the spoken or written word in any tongue used by humans on this planet would ever consider a programming language to be comparable in difficulty or flexibility.
For starters, programming languages have mathematically verifiable syntax; the very concept of syntactic and grammatic creativity is ideally ruled out by a programming language, whereas a human language is intended to be as flexible and expressive as possible, often resulting in some pretty wild variations on syntax and grammar for effect. And don't get me started on slang...
So, no, I don't think programming languages should be copyrightable. An implementation of the language is subject to copyright, but not the syntax and grammar of the language itself.
Think of it this way: programming languages are used to express copyrightable material. How can you apply a copyright to the pen used to scribe the code?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Hi -
I suppose this is ancient history to a lot of people here, but some of these issues came up long ago when in 1988 Ashton-Tate (at the time one of the largest PC software sellers, along with Lotus and Microsoft) filed a lawsuit against Fox Software (based in Ohio) over their "clone" software FoxBASE which later was upgraded to FoxPro. Although both products had interactive front ends, they were essentially based on the large English-like dBASE programming language that had evolved from CP/M based dBASE II some years before. (There were some other "clone" dBASE products such as Clipper or dbXL, soon all dBASE-like products were often referred to as "Xbase") In general the various "clone" products supported most of the Ashton-Tate dBASE language syntax, but also added their own extra enhancements and features. So unlike C or C++, there was no real official standard.
Anyway, in 1991 Borland wanted to acquire Ashton-Tate (which they did) but supposedly one of the conditions imposed by the U.S. Justice department (based on a concern that one company would dominate the PC database software market) was that they drop the lawsuit against Fox Software. They did indeed finally drop the lawsuit, but probably not too many people know that Borland delayed actually filing the papers that ended the lawsuit for a long time.
Then, in 1992, Microsoft acquired Fox Software (making many of the Fox Software people millionaires about five years later based on their getting M$FT stock options at just the right time), the dBASE / Xbase language slowly faded away, and now 20 years later the whole thing is largely forgotten.
You can read a little more about the lawsuit here:
http://www.foxprohistory.org/ashton_sues_fox.htm
Finally, believe it or not, I still maintain one large FoxPro Windows 2.6 application to this day!
- TWR, Los Angeles, California
Good information...
Thanks for sharing
Google should look into the case of Loglan versus Lojban. The creator of the constructed language Loglan sued and lost against the creators of Lojban, a derivative language with similar grammar but with different words. Especially relevant since Loglan/Lojban was designed to be easily read and interpreted by computers.
F A R T Copyright That!
Hmm, well if you believe Java is copyrighted (the syntax not the VM), then since it has the same syntax as C++, it follows that Oracle have a HUGE infringement claim to pay.
Because that's the thing, all the 'Float', classes etc. they're all COPIED FROM C++.
Well this will certainly end with the entire IT industry moving to europe or any other country which doesn't allow software patents.
That's how you spell "Troll" in Elvish.
I don't think elves had a word for "patent".
There's a key difference here. While Android adds new libraries and APIs, it does not break the Java core. In fact, the key point of Oracle's pissy attitude is that they don't want Java SE compatible code stacks on portable devices; they want to force all portable devices to be crippled with Java ME.
To carry forward with your Microsoft point, it would be like Microsoft insisting that you can only run 16-bit windows on portable devices, with 32 and 64 bit versions reserved for "desktops."
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
It's a very interesting case. Way back when Ashton-Tate sued a vendor of some dBase clone over this very same thing. However, the question of copyright on a programming language was not settled in that case, because it turned out that dBase was itself a clone of a language invented by a dude working for the government (JPL) I think, and released into the public domain. Therefore the question of whether a computer language could be copyrighted was moot, because Ashton-Tate could not possibly have a copyright on that particular work regardless, and the more interesting question was left unaddressed.
A computer language has semantics and is a form of linquistics since the computer language can be broken down into tokens similar to syllables and phonemes etc. Otherwise, all the human languages would be copyrightable. That is, everyone who speaks english and its variations (i.e. American English etc) would have to pay a royalty to Britain.
Another way of looking at it is the computer language standards groups. When various people participate in the standards group i.e. computer languages and help define the language and its ISO STD, I'd think all particpants including the company that submitted the language to the standards org signed agreements that they don't own the rights to it. This is similar to the case of Rambus joining a standards group to get their idea accepted as a standard to the industry and then when everyone participates, they go out and patent it and then sue everyone who is using it for patent infringement!
Since JAVA wasn't patented and was made a dejue (spelling?) patent based on industry accepatance and popularity, and just because they bought Sun doesn't mean that they own the rights to this language.
So, it seems that Oracle is now using the same arguments SCO used in their attacks. Namely, that an API is copyrightable. Did Google's lawyer miss that, or why didn't he include this as reference?
I understand some of the reasons for Google picking Java, but I still didn't like it. And I'm no fan of Oracle or its ilk. What I'd like to see is a phone/tablet mobile OS plus application framework based on C/C++. One thing I've missed on Android is the difficulty of porting C/C++ *IX code (the real standard) to Java. I think this is a huge loss to android to lose ~40 years of *IX continuity and the apps show it. If you like interpreted languages, great, use or write a C++ interpreter. If you like bytecode, fine, write a C++ bytecode framework. If you like JIT compilation, find, do that for C++, wouldn't be that hard. If you like fast native compiled code, C/C++ is the gold standard, and you get support for things like unsigned integers (crazy talk I know). Java lovers, flame away...
That is, everyone who speaks english and its variations (i.e. American English etc) would have to pay a royalty to Britain.
And Britain would have to pay royalties to the Danes, the Germans, and the French.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
It's amazing how many people don't get this distinction.
Perhaps a car analogy would h---JUST kidding.
More seriously, it's often referred to as "confusing the map with the territory".
Analogy using a map and a copyright holder (what the heck, let's call him "Larry"):
Larry has a map of China (which he didn't actually draw, himself, but that's beside the point).
The map is copyright by Larry. This means that anyone publishing a copy of Larry's map owes Larry some money. So far, so good.
Here's where the attempted sleight of hand comes in: Larry wants the courts to rule that his copyright in this map of China also grants him copyright over China the country. And thus Larry gets paid by anyone saying anything to do with China. Which is preposterous.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
everyone who speaks english and its variations (i.e. American English etc) would have to pay a royalty to Britain.
Not sure that American English is a derivative of British English. I think it's more a case that both languages are derived from some common English that existed in the 17th or 18th centuries. Since the creators of the language are long dead, it would be hard to charge royalties to the Americans now.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Tolkein's language(s) is not used in a mathematical, logical. context. Most of his writings are so convoluted, and cryptic that the average person can not fathom his world. This imaginary world is self encompassing, and bears little resemblance to reality.
By contrast, Java is a mathematical language that is factual in nature. It is derived from, and is very closely related to C++. The constructs and syntax of Java were intentionally for C++ programmers to understand. Try writing a Java program without braces, for loops, if statements, input and output statements, functions, classes, etc. Now find another programming language that does not contain these elements.
IANAL, but I am an avid Tolkein reader and an extensive programmer of roughly 14 languages. Programming languages pretty much all say the same thing and it is relatively easy to convert the logic of a program into a different language. I see the copyright issue coming up because Oracle is grasping at straws. Their patents are being thrown out, and Sun open sourced the code before they bought it.
Oracle has its back to the wall. They spent roughly 7.4 billion bucks on a boondoggle. Ellison's folly is proof that you can become a millionaire with Linux, you just have to start out as a billionaire.
No Office Suite! No Java! No Database! No soup for you Oracle!