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 NAA24282; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:55:52 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA24898 for ; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:55:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail2.tpgi.com.au (mail.tpgi.com.au [203.12.160.58]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id h8LBtn512658 for ; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:55:50 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from 203-219-234-137-syd-ts25-2600.tpgi.com.au (203-219-234-137-syd-ts25-2600.tpgi.com.au [203.219.234.137]) by mail2.tpgi.com.au (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8LBthW4010169; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:55:45 +1000 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Commercial application written in O'Caml: ExcelEverywhere From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@ozemail.com.au To: Benjamin Geer Cc: caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr In-Reply-To: <3F6CB865.8030902@socialtools.net> References: <3F6AB7CB.6020505@abc.se> <1063969848.27470.42.camel@pelican> <20030919144920.GC4205@redhat.com> <1064085899.2679.58.camel@pelican> <3F6CB865.8030902@socialtools.net> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1064145147.11705.46.camel@pelican> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 21 Sep 2003 21:55:39 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Kaspersky-Antivirus: Passed X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ozemail:01 standardised:01 patents:99 source-code:01 standardised:01 pierre:01 licencing:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 literate:01 interfaces:01 o'caml:02 wrote:03 wrote:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk 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 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