Another interesting take: Machine architectures expose an API, and it may become impossible for anyone but a chip manufacturer to distribute a compiler.

It is usually in the interest of the designer of the API to have as many users as possible.

BUT in this case we are talking not of using part of an API (say the Math library to implement a physics engine is assembly and link it) but of reimplementing a whole language which has, as of today an when the events discussed took place (even if we agree to hate it) an owner.

> Who would own the standard library for any given language?

Require copyright assignment or a guarantee for royalty free use by any implementation. Standards committees already have to deal with hidden patent dependencies someone might sneak in so this would just be another bullet point on paperwork that should already exist.

The standard library is owned by the people creating it, and of course your work using the standard library is a derived work of that standard library.

For example, glibc is owned by GNU, and it is licensed under the LGPL, so you are allowed to dynamically link it without having to release your own code under the GPL (or compatible). This is all happening today.

The only projects that will be more seriously affected by this decision are WINE and similar - projects that are copying the API but not the implementation. Even here, it is very likely that WINE could win on Fair Use, since their copying is obviously done for interoperability.

Also, APIs are obviously creative human works, and their purpose is first and foremost usability for the end-user.