Browse thread
[Caml-list] Announcing the OMake build system version 0.9.1
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2004-09-06 (09:52) |
From: | skaller <skaller@u...> |
Subject: | Re: [Omake] Re: [Caml-list] Announcing the OMake build system version 0.9.1 |
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