Public Domain Python

[Pat McCann]

"Alex Martelli" <aleaxit at yahoo.com> writes:

> I don't think anybody is claiming proprietary rights on Python
> proper, i.e., the *language*?  Copyright on the implementation,
> and maybe trademark on the name in certain contexts.  But if
> you reimplemented the language independently (e.g. the way
> Mr Skaller did with Vyper), deliberately "cloning" it, would you
> be running any legal risk...?  I thought only Java and ADA were
> popular languages undergoing that level of 'protection'.

Yeah!  Finally, someone uses "proprietary" correctly.  Right.  CWI and
CNRI only claim proprietary rights on the proprietary software that is
our beloved Python interpreter (and related software and documentation).

(RANT: Seeing what a proprietor can do to even liberally licensed open
source free software as we have just seen should remove all hesitance in
calling any copyrighted software proprietary (or any other intellectual
property that is not public property in the pulic domain).  (BTW, note
that they could have changed licenses just as easily if Python 1.0 had
been GPLed.  They could have even closed it.  It's a shame that Guido
couldn't have gotten a lot of code into the thing under many people's
copyrights - then it would have been very difficult to change the
license.)  It just points up the importance of considering licensing and
ownership when authoring software or even when submitting patches to
projects or even other forms of support including plain usage.)

Now, on to the main reason for this post:  Why do Java and Ada (it's
named in honor of a woman named Ada, so it's usually mixed case) have
the level of protection mentioned in the above quote?  I find it hard
to believe.  I know M$ had problems with $un over Java, but I suppose
that involved contract disputes or trade secrets or use of the name
Java or something like that.