[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Falcon P.L. license (ITP:Bug#460591)

On Thursday 27 March 2008 06:54:36 pm Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > The point is that, as previously noted, the patentability of grammar
> > sets (i.e. artificial languages) has been recently debated. Including
> > the definition of the scripts in this license has the aim to prevent a
> > Big Guy to come in, add a frobotz statement and patent the resulting
> > language (or, as someone has pointed out, just patent the grammar
> > someone else wrote as-is). Or in other words, I did it to maintain
> > freedom of the grammar set this language define (it means, freedom for
> > everyone to use and extend it).
> No one can patent the grammar that you wrote, so this is completely
> useless. The only point of these clauses seem to claim the copyright on
> scripts using the language.

Huh? Why can't someone patent langauge grammar/syntax? Seems to fit pretty 
well into the patentability definition here in the U.S[1]... you don't even 
need to accept the idea that software is patentable to see how a language 
might be pantentable.


[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/usc_sup_01_35_10_II_20_10.html

Sean Kellogg
e: skellogg@gmail.com

Reply to: