Name of front-end

Name of front-end

[Henrik Sorensen]

For more some time now, I have been working on a gpl'ed PL/1 front-end for 
GCC, well, just a few hours every week.

Would there be any objections against naming the compiler front-end the
"GNU PL/1 compiler" ?

And name the directory for the pl/1 compiler for gnupl1 ?

I first thought of gpl1, but it seems gpl is already used ;-)

Thanks for your comments

Henrik

Name of front-end

[Andrew Haley]

Henrik Sorensen writes:
 > 
 > For more some time now, I have been working on a gpl'ed PL/1 front-end for 
 > GCC, well, just a few hours every week.
 > 
 > Would there be any objections against naming the compiler front-end the
 > "GNU PL/1 compiler" ?
 > 
 > And name the directory for the pl/1 compiler for gnupl1 ?
 > 
 > I first thought of gpl1, but it seems gpl is already used ;-)
 > 
 > Thanks for your comments

Is PL/1 a trademark?  If it is, you'll have to call it something like

"The GNU compiler for the PL/1 programming language."

Andrew.

Re: Name of front-end

[Robert Dewar]

Andrew Haley wrote:

> Is PL/1 a trademark?  If it is, you'll have to call it something like
> 
> "The GNU compiler for the PL/1 programming language."
> 
> Andrew.

Trademark law is complex, I strongly advise against anyone giving
amateur legal opinions in this area :-)

Re: Name of front-end

[Henrik Sorensen]

>  > Would there be any objections against naming the compiler front-end the
>  > "GNU PL/1 compiler" ?
>  >
>
> Is PL/1 a trademark?  If it is, you'll have to call it something like
> "The GNU compiler for the PL/1 programming language."

Trademark or not, I do like your suggestion

>
> Andrew.
Thanks
Henrik

Re: Name of front-end

[Paul Koning]

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> writes:

 Andrew> Is PL/1 a trademark? 

FWIW, some IBM 360 PL/1 manuals I just looked at do not mark or claim
"PL/1" as trademark.  

       paul

Re: Name of front-end

[Andreas Jaeger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 829 bytes --]

Henrik Sorensen <henrik.sorensen@balcab.ch> writes:

> For more some time now, I have been working on a gpl'ed PL/1 front-end for 
> GCC, well, just a few hours every week.
>
> Would there be any objections against naming the compiler front-end the
> "GNU PL/1 compiler" ?

What's the copyright situation of the code?  Did you assign it to the
FSF?

> And name the directory for the pl/1 compiler for gnupl1 ?

If you like to integrate it into GCC, the directory name would most
probably be just pl1, see the other frontends that GCC has.

> I first thought of gpl1, but it seems gpl is already used ;-)

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj
  SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, 90429 Nürnberg, Germany
   GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: Name of front-end

[Henrik Sorensen]

> > Would there be any objections against naming the compiler front-end the
> > "GNU PL/1 compiler" ?
> What's the copyright situation of the code?  Did you assign it to the
> FSF?

Currently I have not assigned the copyrigths, but this is clearly my 
intentions. But to be honest, there isn't much going on in pl1 the compiler 
yet. It is basically just a scanner and parser that gets invoked from gcc.
There is still a very long way to have a workable compiler, let alone, having 
it ready for inclussion in the gcc main tree. I would get the assignment of 
copyrights going, only when I actually had something working to show.

But does it matter for the name of the front-end, whether or not the copyright 
has been assigned ?

> > And name the directory for the pl/1 compiler for gnupl1 ?
> If you like to integrate it into GCC, the directory name would most
> probably be just pl1, see the other frontends that GCC has.

Good point. I will keep it as pl1. 

> Andreas

Thanks
Henrik

Re: Name of front-end

[Toon Moene]

Henrik Sorensen wrote:

>>>Would there be any objections against naming the compiler front-end the
>>>"GNU PL/1 compiler" ?
>>
>>What's the copyright situation of the code?  Did you assign it to the
>>FSF?

> Currently I have not assigned the copyrigths, but this is clearly my 
> intentions. But to be honest, there isn't much going on in pl1 the compiler 
> yet. It is basically just a scanner and parser that gets invoked from gcc.

That was the state of GNU Fortran 95 four years go - yet Andy Vaught, 
its author, assigned copyrights to the FSF.  It makes it clear where 
you're heading w.r.t inclusion into the official GCC repository.

Hope this helps,

-- 
Toon Moene - mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
GNU Fortran 95: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/ (under construction)

Re: Name of front-end

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Henrik Sorensen wrote:
> But does it matter for the name of the front-end, whether or not the
> copyright has been assigned ?

No necessarily, as far as I know.  However, you must not call any software
"GNU Something" unless the FSF explicitly approved that, so you should do
that first.

(I don't have the link handy, but I'm quite sure there is something on the
main GNU site at http://www.gnu.org.)

Hope this helps,
Gerald
-- 
Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry)   gerald@pfeifer.com   http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/

Re: Name of front-end

[Henrik Sorensen]

On Saturday 06 December 2003 18:42, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Henrik Sorensen wrote:
> > But does it matter for the name of the front-end, whether or not the
> > copyright has been assigned ?
>
> No necessarily, as far as I know.  However, you must not call any software
> "GNU Something" unless the FSF explicitly approved that, so you should do
> that first.
That's one of the reasons I ask. 

Anyway, I got enough answers that basically all say the same thing, that the 
copyrigths ought to be assigned to FSF.

>
> (I don't have the link handy, but I'm quite sure there is something on the
> main GNU site at http://www.gnu.org.)

http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain.html#SEC_Top

> Gerald

Thanks to all who replied 

Henrik

Re: Name of front-end

[Joe Buck]

On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 06:42:26PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Henrik Sorensen wrote:
> > But does it matter for the name of the front-end, whether or not the
> > copyright has been assigned ?
> 
> No necessarily, as far as I know.  However, you must not call any software
> "GNU Something" unless the FSF explicitly approved that, so you should do
> that first.

Unfortunately, since the FSF allowed gnuplot to get away with it, their
ability to stop others is in question.  Given this history, I would still
say that we should strongly REQUEST people not to use "GNU XYZ" without
talking to the FSF, as it will only confuse the public.
 

Re: Name of front-end

[Marc Espie]

In article <Pine.BSF.4.58.0312061840220.28341@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> you write:
>On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Henrik Sorensen wrote:
>> But does it matter for the name of the front-end, whether or not the
>> copyright has been assigned ?
>
>No necessarily, as far as I know.  However, you must not call any software
>"GNU Something" unless the FSF explicitly approved that, so you should do
>that first.

'Must not', or 'should not' ? Is GNU registered as a trademark or something
that prevents its use like this ? And then what should the status of
gnuplot be ?

Re: [GCC] Re: Name of front-end

[Trevor Jenkins]

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Marc Espie <espie@quatramaran.ens.fr> wrote:

> >No necessarily, as far as I know.  However, you must not call any software
> >"GNU Something" unless the FSF explicitly approved that, so you should do
> >that first.
>
> 'Must not', or 'should not' ? Is GNU registered as a trademark or something
> that prevents its use like this ? And then what should the status of
> gnuplot be ?

What about Gnu Plot? Whilst open source it isn't (at least wasn't) a
formal GNU project.

Regards, Trevor

<>< Re: deemed!

Re: [GCC] Re: Name of front-end

[Phil Edwards]

On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 08:45:25PM +0000, Trevor Jenkins wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Marc Espie <espie@quatramaran.ens.fr> wrote:
> 
> > >No necessarily, as far as I know.  However, you must not call any software
> > >"GNU Something" unless the FSF explicitly approved that, so you should do
> > >that first.
> >
> > 'Must not', or 'should not' ? Is GNU registered as a trademark or something
> > that prevents its use like this ? And then what should the status of
> > gnuplot be ?
> 
> What about Gnu Plot? Whilst open source it isn't (at least wasn't) a
> formal GNU project.

That was coincidence.  They've answered this question many times.  It's
in their FAQ.  They'd never heard of the GNU project when they came up
with their name, and no, it's not an official GNU package, although it
is open source.

-- 
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
    - Brian W. Kernighan

Re: Name of front-end

[Richard Kenner]

    FWIW, some IBM 360 PL/1 manuals I just looked at do not mark or claim
    "PL/1" as trademark.  

But certainly some did.  And contemporary lore was that they trademarked PL/2,
PL/3, etc ...

Re: Name of front-end

[Robert Dewar]

Richard Kenner wrote:

>     FWIW, some IBM 360 PL/1 manuals I just looked at do not mark or claim
>     "PL/1" as trademark.  
> 
> But certainly some did.  And contemporary lore was that they trademarked PL/2,
> PL/3, etc ...

Hmm, Richard, what is your authority/reference for this? I can find no 
evidence that PL/I was trademarked. I very much doubt that PL/1 is 
trademarked since IBM always uses PL/I (letter I), not PL/1 (digit 1) in 
their product literature

As for PL/2 etc, that's surely bogus, since such names were never used
in commerce (a requirement for trademarking something!)

If you google on PL/I you will find zillions of references from third
parties with no hint of a trademark, so I think you can safetly talk
about GNU PL/1 without worrying!

Re: Name of front-end

[Andrew Haley]

Robert Dewar writes:

 > If you google on PL/I you will find zillions of references from third
 > parties with no hint of a trademark, so I think you can safetly talk
 > about GNU PL/1 without worrying!

Trademark law is complex, I strongly advise against anyone giving
amateur legal opinions in this area :-)

Re: Name of front-end

[Robert Dewar]

Andrew Haley wrote:

> Robert Dewar writes:
> 
>  > If you google on PL/I you will find zillions of references from third
>  > parties with no hint of a trademark, so I think you can safetly talk
>  > about GNU PL/1 without worrying!
> 
> Trademark law is complex, I strongly advise against anyone giving
> amateur legal opinions in this area :-)

Umm, I don't think you need a lawyer to tell you that it a name is
not trademarked, then using it will not be a trademark infringement :-)

Re: Name of front-end

[Laurent GUERBY]

On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 00:31, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Umm, I don't think you need a lawyer to tell you that it a name is
> not trademarked, then using it will not be a trademark infringement :-)

Sure, ask the MobiliX folks. MobiliX is not trademarked, Asterix
and Obelix are, since the words are "close enough" German courts
ruled that they were violating the existing trademarks. 

Now you've just expanded the "name is not trademarked" by 
"name is not close enough from existing trademark following existing
rulings in various countries", and you need a lawyer
to do the search. (MobiliX is trying to get the ruling
reversed in various ways, estimated legal cost is around 60 000 USD).

Unfortunate state of affair.

Laurent

Re: Name of front-end

[Robert Dewar]

Laurent GUERBY wrote:

> On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 00:31, Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
>>Umm, I don't think you need a lawyer to tell you that it a name is
>>not trademarked, then using it will not be a trademark infringement :-)
> 
> 
> Sure, ask the MobiliX folks. MobiliX is not trademarked, Asterix
> and Obelix are, since the words are "close enough" German courts
> ruled that they were violating the existing trademarks. 

Indeed the german courts are rather notorious here. My comments are
strictly with respect to US case law :-)

Re: Name of front-end

[Daniel Berlin]

On Dec 8, 2003, at 6:31 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:

> Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> Robert Dewar writes:
>>  > If you google on PL/I you will find zillions of references from 
>> third
>>  > parties with no hint of a trademark, so I think you can safetly 
>> talk
>>  > about GNU PL/1 without worrying!
>> Trademark law is complex, I strongly advise against anyone giving
>> amateur legal opinions in this area :-)
>
> Umm, I don't think you need a lawyer to tell you that it a name is
> not trademarked, then using it will not be a trademark infringement :-)

Remember, just because it's not a *registered* trademark, doesn't make 
it not a trademark. You simply have to use it in trade for it to be a 
trademark. Though of course, registration gives you benefits. In the 
US, anyway.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/register.htm

(The PTO, BTW, has the most worthless website on the planet. They made 
it look nicer recently, but didn't make any information easier to 
access. Zen and the art of redesigning government websites, i guess).

Re: Name of front-end

[Dale Johannesen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 546 bytes --]

On Dec 8, 2003, at 8:32 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
>     FWIW, some IBM 360 PL/1 manuals I just looked at do not mark or 
> claim
>     "PL/1" as trademark.
>
> But certainly some did.  And contemporary lore was that they 
> trademarked PL/2,
> PL/3, etc ...

I've heard this also, but it may well be a myth.   Here
http://www-3.ibm.com/software/data/ims/v5pdf/DFSI10C6.PDF.
is an IBM manual, which talks about PL/I and contains a list of IBM
trademarks (p. 13 according to Acrobat, or xi according to the 
document),
and PL/I is not one of them.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/enriched, Size: 710 bytes --]

On Dec 8, 2003, at 8:32 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:

<excerpt>    FWIW, some IBM 360 PL/1 manuals I just looked at do not
mark or claim

    "PL/1" as trademark.  


But certainly some did.  And contemporary lore was that they
trademarked PL/2,

PL/3, etc ...

</excerpt>

I've heard this also, but it may well be a myth.   Here

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,FFFF</param><x-tad-bigger>http://www-3.ibm.com/software/data/ims/v5pdf/DFSI10C6.PDF</x-tad-bigger></color><x-tad-bigger>.

</x-tad-bigger></fontfamily>is an IBM manual, which talks about PL/I
and contains a list of IBM

trademarks (p. 13 according to Acrobat, or xi according to the
document), 

and PL/I is not one of them.

Re: Name of front-end

[Felix Lee]

search at www.uspto.gov doesn't turn up any current or historical
trademarks for "pl/1" or "pl/i" or "pl/2" by IBM.  not sure the
limitations of that database, but it does include dead trademarks
earlier than 1960.
--

Re: Name of front-end

[Victor Maurice Faubert]

At 05:20 +0000 2003.12.09, gcc-digest-help@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
>From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>
>Subject: Re: Name of front-end
>Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:59:36 -0500
>To: Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com>
>
>
>On Dec 8, 2003, at 6:31 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
>>Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>>>Robert Dewar writes:
>>>  > If you google on PL/I you will find zillions of references from third
>>>  > parties with no hint of a trademark, so I think you can safetly talk
>>>  > about GNU PL/1 without worrying!
>>>Trademark law is complex, I strongly advise against anyone giving
>>>amateur legal opinions in this area :-)
>>
>>Umm, I don't think you need a lawyer to tell you that it a name is
>>not trademarked, then using it will not be a trademark infringement :-)
>
>Remember, just because it's not a *registered* trademark, doesn't 
>make it not a trademark. You simply have to use it in trade for it 
>to be a trademark. Though of course, registration gives you 
>benefits. In the US, anyway.
>http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/register.htm
>
>(The PTO, BTW, has the most worthless website on the planet. They 
>made it look nicer recently, but didn't make any information easier 
>to access. Zen and the art of redesigning government websites, i 
>guess).

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd point out that an ANSI standard for PL/I exists
(ANSI X3.53-1976) and that non-IBM compilers for the language exist(ed),
e.g., VAX.  IBM contributed to the ANSI standard which, from a quick
skimming of its introductory text, contains no information that the name
is trademarked or is used with IBM's approval.  That prior practice would
indicate that PL/I is in the public domain as the name of programming
language.
-- 
						Vic

Re: Name of front-end

[Robert Dewar]

> I'm not a lawyer, but I'd point out that an ANSI standard for PL/I exists
> (ANSI X3.53-1976) and that non-IBM compilers for the language exist(ed),
> e.g., VAX.  IBM contributed to the ANSI standard which, from a quick
> skimming of its introductory text, contains no information that the name
> is trademarked or is used with IBM's approval.  That prior practice would
> indicate that PL/I is in the public domain as the name of programming
> language.

Exactly ...