From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA03787; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:52:22 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA03603 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:52:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i869qIpd027107 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:52:19 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp210-32.lns2.syd3.internode.on.net [203.122.210.32]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i869qDHY097044; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 19:22:16 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Omake] Re: [Caml-list] Announcing the OMake build system version 0.9.1 From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Brian Hurt Cc: james woodyatt , Caml List , omake@metaprl.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1094464332.3352.1075.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 06 Sep 2004 19:52:12 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 413C3352.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 sourceforge:01 2004:99 recoding:01 mli:01 mli:01 presto:99 9660:01 glebe:01 compiler:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 nsw:01 snail:02 discard:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Mon, 2004-09-06 at 13:54, Brian Hurt wrote: > THe license on the compiler is irrelevent- you > own both the original work (the code) and the derivitive work (the > executable). Except the executable is probably *also* derived from other header files and libraries. > If this becomes important, hire a lawyer. Why would you believe a lawyer who can't cite a long history of case law (decisions made by judges)? > First off, reimplementing someone else's code (even in a > different language) does create a derivitive work. Translating it creates a derived work. Recoding the original code creates a derived work. But reimplementing the same algorithm does not. So .. hehe .. I could take your module and copy the mli file and implement the functions and then the interface is a derived work but the implementation is not. And in Ocaml I could then simply discard the mli file, run ocaml -i to derive a new mli file -- and hey presto, now the interface isn't a derived work either .. even if line for line it is totally identical to the original :) -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners