On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 05:56:29PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 07:53:52AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jul 21, 2004, at 09:26, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But the human who expresses a beautiful and elegant idea of loops
*does* have a copyright on
On Jul 21, 2004, at 09:26, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But the human who expresses a beautiful and elegant idea of loops
*does* have a copyright on that, even if he writes it into a program
to produce customized loops.
Not likely. The type of loops generated by a compiler are not really
On Thu, Jul 29, 2004 at 07:53:52AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Jul 21, 2004, at 09:26, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
But the human who expresses a beautiful and elegant idea of loops
*does* have a copyright on that, even if he writes it into a program
to produce customized loops.
]
More questions about
the QPL for a compiler
___
* To: debian-legal debian-legal@lists.debian.org
* Subject: More questions
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:07:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Yes, I understand that the runtime library and such are LGPL'd. But
the compiler, when it compiles a loop, for example, does it in a
particular way. The patterns of assembly code
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:06:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:07:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Yes, I understand that the runtime library and such are LGPL'd. But
the compiler, when it compiles a loop,
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But second, it uses better template code -- its idea of how to compile
a for loop over short integers is beautiful. The structures into
which it compiles a break-free switch statement are elegant. There is
much creativity there.
But the creativity
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, but that mechanical transformation has two sources: the program I
feed it as input, and various copyrightable elements in the compiler.
I don't think anyone is going to argue against a claim that the output
of a compiler might contain copyrightable
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:52:08PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm think of an analogy with a certain children's toy called a spirograph.
You may have heard of it, or maybe not. It basically consists of a large
ring, with cog teeth on the
My understanding of the Ocaml compiler is that it emits part of itself
into its output. Not all of itself, not even most of itself, but a
noticeable and copyrightable part. I know this is the case for most
compilers, and see no reason it wouldn't be for Ocaml as well.
Now I look again at QPL 6:
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 12:59:35PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
My understanding of the Ocaml compiler is that it emits part of itself
into its output. Not all of itself, not even most of itself, but a
noticeable and copyrightable part. I know this is the case for most
compilers, and
Sylvain LE GALL [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ocaml, as far as i know, is splitted in two differents sets of object
files :
- one set represents the compiler, this means the internal guts of the
compiler, typing system et al
- another set represents the standards library, stubs system (
Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes, I understand that the runtime library and such are LGPL'd. But
the compiler, when it compiles a loop, for example, does it in a
particular way. The patterns of assembly code output by the compiler
-- not the parts in the library linked in, but
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:07:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Sylvain LE GALL [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ocaml, as far as i know, is splitted in two differents sets of object
files :
- one set represents the compiler, this means the internal guts of the
compiler, typing system
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:07:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Yes, I understand that the runtime library and such are LGPL'd. But
the compiler, when it compiles a loop, for example, does it in a
particular way. The patterns of assembly code output by the compiler
-- not the parts in
15 matches
Mail list logo
