From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c3220a01ba6c6485 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fc544,c3220a01ba6c6485 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc544,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-18 18:01:57 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.graphics.opengl Subject: Re: OpenGL bindings for Ada Date: 18 Mar 1995 19:57:26 -0500 Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences Message-ID: <3kfvhm$drs@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> References: <3ir5g2$5am@adm09.iac.honeywell.com> <3irb3o$sse@starbase.neosoft.com> <3jqb4j$r6u@fido.asd.sgi.com> <3jvmvk$t2g@adm09.iac.honeywell.com> <3k2qkh$3c0@fido.asd.sgi.com> <3k524j$a5r@pulsar.sky.net> <3kab85$70a@brisbane.celsius.oz.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu Xref: bga.com comp.lang.ada:11201 comp.graphics.opengl:2843 Date: 1995-03-18T19:57:26-05:00 List-Id: Daniel Wengelin says "The interface specs are there to enable people to write software on top of them, which is exactly what you are going to do. there is absolutely no way that anyone can publish an interface spec and having restrictions on writing software that use that interface." Unfortunately this seemingly innocuous and non-controversion statement is in fact the product of wishful thinking. People can and do claim intellectual properly rights in interfaces (e.g. Apple's claim to the idea of a windowing interface, or Lotus' claim to their macro language, the latter being used to prevent Borland from distributing a product that reads macros written in this language. Daniel, what you say *should* be true, but it is far from clear that courts will eventually understand the wisdom of this position. Especailly in the US, where the fundamental purpose of IPR's is to encourage innovation, it is particularly ironic that anyone would argue that protecting interfaces promotes innovation, but this is exactly what some people *do* argue. This of course can start a long and interesting thread, but it really does not belong on CLA :-)