Hello, Cyberax, you wrote: the C> is Now. The C> IBM is not the standard creator (interested persons can download and check up it), specially glanced in our basis of standards. So ISO in any way does not grant the right to steal results of work of the commercial companies. You think, if Zimbabwe creates the standard on "Windows 10 for PC" it will be possible free of charge it ? You policy ISO in the field of intellectual property rights esteem. And the question why IBM cannot has legal proceedings with Oracle/Microsoft disappears itself. m2l>> only the person not knowing laws, can consider that API cannot be under copyright'. A C> Aha, be going to send checks in IBM for SQL. And SCO for Linux. You will not check, but POSIX it too the standard.... And it too can be implemented free of charge and without demand SCO. The C> How many wonderful discoveries will be! I think, what even API for printf to someone belongs. Yes, belongs. And you posess not an exclusive right to make own implementation of the interface printf and to sell it for money. Because standard ANSI a C. The C> And here SQL is under copyright' which can lasts till 175 years and will "infect" any derivative product. That that it is under a copyright does not cancel that the owner of a copyright granted the irrevocable right to you to use result of the work, standardizing an ANSI SQL. Cs>>> They can API from RPM, for example. m2l>> RedHat and so is legal owner API from RPM (in him of the first reincarnation). But here the paradox, can condemn nobody.... The C> Is the FIRST process on copyright' on API. Aha, Google probably the first who so in the impudent stole another's property. In the presence of standards for which it is not necessary to pay. At possibility to make something the. At possibility for copecks to buy the license at Sun. And yes, we return to a question, what law deduces API from under action of laws on intellectual property? What in API such that is not present in the simple source code?