>>The script for "The Godfather" is not in the public domain.
>>It's not the language that's protected, it's the application of the language.. or the compiler that's protected.

Which is fair enough, but the underlying language is free. It's also full of anomalies and inefficiencies, but long-term compatibility is more important than constant revision if there's isn't a vendor.

>>Computer "languages" aren't really languages.
>>They're tools we use to make a computer- another tool - select and execute commands, from a limited set, in a specific sequence.

I see plenty of similarities to written language in which words and other elements are brought together to produce songs, letters, poems, news articles, posts, books... many of which are worthy of protection. This model also means that works can last a very long time with no further revision... e.g. young people can still enjoy Charles Dickens but will be bewildered by NET constructs prevalent less than a decade ago but thoroughly buried today.

>>That said, the syntaxes of many computer languages - BASIC, COBOL, Assembler, FORTRAN, C etc, are essentially in the public domain.
>>In their cases, it's the compiler and the IDE, not the syntax, that make the tool useful to the user.

You'd better let Google and Oracle know that. ;-)

>>If I can write a whiz-bang FORTRAN compiler and IDE for Android that let the user make it, as Damon Runyon would have said, squirt cider in your ear, I'm entitled to try to protect them.

Fully agree with the concept of copyright for original works built upon a language. But the language itself? I vote for longevity and user-driven change.