People (customers) will ASK for a Jeep. Just like they will ASK for a "Xerox machine", Kleenex, Band-Aid, etc. In the Pentium era, you didn't go looking for a "586" -- unless you were deliberately trying to say "I don't want the Intel product".
Every piece of significant and original amount of written down software code that has been published or legally accepted proof of its origin as being unpublished is copyrighted, maybe the license of zero copyright to public domain is an exception. Other than that exception, license is different, to allow use of that copyrighted work.
That's a trademark, which even though "Jeep" started off as or coming from a generic term, the name and general shape of the vehicle front grill have been trademarked now. Same with Xerox or Cleenex, yet those names are used in common language. The FreeBSD name, that of many other operating systems, license foundations, software organizations, scripting languages and (strictly) programming languages have been trademarked, yet many of their offerings are free to use, through their licenses.
I believe that's by the CDDL, which is actually a good license. Unless one looks into it, they wouldn't know that, because the GPL community bashes it and says it's bad. They get the word. Its only major inconvenience is that it's incompatible with CDDL. CDDL was intended to be the anti-overly-viral, at the time anti-GPL compatible license. In my opinion, that's great, because GPL is too restrictive by not allowing free use with non-GPL libraries through dynamic linking. LGPL is a whole lot better, but is still with flaws. I've written more about this on that thread astyle has linked. MPL has to jump through hoops to make it protected from that, and at the same time allow compatibility with GPL.
... ignoring the immediate next sentence what I mean with "language" here ....
... plus the immediate next paragraph explaining that a language specification is of course subject to copyright ...
This is not true. It is not "you would have to create a NEW (but equivalent) LANGUAGE to do so". YOU have to create different opcodes if you design new CPU. Or maybe I have used Intel opcodes (as programmer) in violation of their copyright? Every programmer has to develop his own x86 assembler with different opcodes and then can start programming... All magazines publishing ASM opcodes are in violation and they did not know it.
This "ended up" because of AMD 486 and Cyrix 486. It is not possible to get trademark for number like 586 and this "ended up" in Pentium. Why you think this is wrong or maybe unfair?
Anything you write (even unpublished), "play" (as in music) that is "affixed to a tangible medium" contains an implicit copyright. Explicitly claiming one isn't required. However, it's presence avoids an infringer claiming they didn't know of the copyright OR the name of the copyright HOLDER. In the US, you can gain additional protection by registering a copyright.
There are specific steps that the creator of an original (copyrighted) work must undertake to place HIS (her) material in the public domain (barring the expiration and nonrenewal of copyright). Many folks want to think that something is public domain without legal proof -- the whole notion of "abandonware".
The opcodes (instruction mnemonics) in their assembly language are copyrighted. If you implement a work-alike processor with the exact same opcode bindings, you can't use the same mnemonics for those instructions.
If you design another CPU, then you create mnemonics that are appropriate for that CPU. And, copyright them (if you think someone may try to create a work-alike clone of your products). E.g., the first CPU that I designed included an instruction "SYNC <value>" that acted as a rendezvous in a multiprocessor application.
There is nothing "unfair" or "wrong" with Intel deciding to call their "486 successor" Pentium. They did it to differentiate themselves in a market where customers (end users) were increasingly talking about CPUs -- "I've got a 286", "Ha! I've got a 386!". The conversation then becomes "I've got a 486", "Ha! I've got a PENTIUM!" The Pentium being an Intel property, not a "K586".
Openjdk is under a GPL-2 license with a classpath exception.
If you're referring to the Android copyright lawsuit, Google is winning that so far.
In some ways I wish there was a "C Corporation" which could have defended against Microsoft misusing C# and a name for their (originally COOL) Java clone. This name will continue to confuse amateurs for decades. Likewise Microsoft even stole the C++ logo and repurposed it, causing even more intentional confusion to push the platform.
That's why I added, unpublished, which can be legally proven. So, it's along those lines. That's correct, though.
It is not "I've got a Pentium". It is investment of Intel in design and advertisements for 80486 and then competitors say "We also sell 80486". With Pentium this is not possible.
I'm not referring to that - I'm referring to use of Java as a tool to write in-house software. Oracle is basically fighting court battles to avoid having Java share the fate of Fortran and Delphi and COBOL. Because of those fights that Oracle picks with others, people are deciding to go with a different toolset just to avoid having an expensive fight with Oracle on their hands.
Gee, I'm so sorry to have disturbed your sensitivities. I'll get back to work porting those tools -- to NetBSD.
That's actually correct. I wrote it in my terms, and that unpublished has to be proven in order to prove that copyright for any protection or claim. What I wrote wasn't wrong either.
So, I didn't take it that way, even if I have seen an argumentative stance before. It's around the terms of the US Copyright Office. I put it in my words, I know that which he wrote though. Anyone who's read from there knows. I don't need to argue about copyrights, except to say, that license is a different layer than copyrights or patents.
I don't see it like that, at least originally, licenses were for copyright use, and while for protection from patents, its origin centered on permitting use rather than from patent abuse. Partially it is for protection from patent abuse and other patent concerns. The copyright protected from patenting based on ideas obvious or originating from a copyrighted code. License evolution yes, licenses became a reaction to that. Though it's about protections of copyright while allowing use in general. It's later licenses, which addressed patents.
That has certainly not been my experience. I've had a long career as a Java programmer, and none of my employers every heard from Oracle. It's certainly not the case at the large company I work at now, where we use Java for most things.
