So, I don't use a language unless it's open with patent grants and has a non-malicious owner. At this point, Wirth's stuff is probably legally the safest.
Rust, with Mozilla backing it, is probably not going to get you sued. Nim has potential given their commercial interests are paid development and support so far. As in, less greedy they are the better. Languages with community-focused foundations, such as Python, controlling them are probably pretty safe. Although it was risky, the D language now has a foundation. Although no foundation or legal protections, the Myrddin and Zig languages are being run by folks that look helpful rather than predatory.
So, there's you a few examples you might consider if avoiding dependencies on companies likely to pull shit in the future. Venture-backed, publicly-traded, growth-at-all-costs, and/or profit-maximizing-at-all-costs are examples of what to avoid if wanting to future-proof against evil managers turning it from good dependency into bad one.
copyrighted
"Copywritten" probably means nothing, but if it did, it would have something to with copy writing, the act of writing for publication (usually commercial, usually not long-form).
Added: FYI "copyrighting" is not a conscious decision, or an action you can take. Copyright emerges automatically when you create a work, what they've done is defend their copyright in court, and the courts have mixed opinions on the matter.
I mean, it has been big news, and it has already been nuclear war, with Oracle putting Google in a position to switch android from Dalvik (and successors) to OpenJDK. I agree that it could become a pretty horrible precedent (imagine if Microsoft forbade Sun from implementing Excel functions in StarOffice, or for that matter, if MS were prevented from producing Excel in the first place).
The things you're talking about are already protected by patents, and the copyrightability of APIs have nothing to do with them. At the very least, for something to be copyrightable it must be some specific fixed expression (a piece of text, image, video or audio). So the O v. G ruling applies only to actual (code) APIs; not to protocols (or REST "APIs") and certainly not to stuff that's already protected by patents (the distinction between the two may not always make sense to programmers, but it is what it is; for example, algorithms are patentable but not copyrightable, while programs are copyrightable but not patentable).
Does it surprise anyone that this case was decided by the Federal Circuit? The rogue court most consistently overturned by the Supreme Court, which also is responsible for most of the disastrous software patent cases out there.
The only bright light is that the Supreme Court has reopened the question. Given how often they overturn the Federal Circuit, we have real hope that we'll return to the previous precedent. Which is that since matching APIs is a functional part of how code works, and things that are functional are by law not copyrightable, APIs are not copyrightable.