Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
[Caml-list] possible typechecker bug
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2003-09-21 (11:55)
From: skaller <skaller@o...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Commercial application written in O'Caml: ExcelEverywhere
On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 06:28, Benjamin Geer wrote:
> skaller wrote:
>  > In particular, I would like my product to
>  > be ISO Standardised,
> IANAL, but it seems to me that the ISO standardises specifications, not 
> implementations.  Patents are an issue for specifications, because they 
> affect all possible implementations (as in the case you mentioned), but 
> source-code copyrights aren't, because only affect one particular 
> implementation; anyone is free to make their own implementation of the 
> same spec.

It isn't quite that simple. As I'm sure you know
programming languages contain facilities for defining
interfaces, for example, for libraries.

In addition, libraries contain definitions.

In both cases, the library codes being copyright
can't be standardised. Often the actual source
definitions/interface specifications are best given
as a precise way of formulating a requirement.

Therefore, the existence of copyrighted codes may
actually hamper standardisation, and even if it doesn't,
the encumberance is not encouraging to a standardisation
body. See a similar comment from Pierre Weiss about
INRIA's licencing policy -- it isn't the Ocaml team
but INRIA lawyers that vet the terms by which Ocaml
is released. Meaning: it is useful to simplify administrative
and legal issues to get the job done.

In addition, all my sources are literate programmed,
and contain human script stating specifications,
as well as the source codes, so the specifications
I provide cannot be distinguished from the programming
language sources: both are physically embodied in the
same source files. Thus, to release the specifications
for standardisation I have to release the language
source codes as well (both are 'derived' from the
LP source files, and so are derived works covered by
the same copyright)

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: