Re: [Jgeneral] Open Source, Open Standards ?
Hi all ! Comment to Terrence Brannon. Yes, I can see that you discussed this issue. Thanks for some more information. Cheers, Erling Hellenäs -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Open Source, Open Standards ?
On 7/8/07, Erling Hellenäs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi all ! Thanks for an excellent answer to this question, as usual. Erling, everything you say below was said by me one month earlier: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg03140.html A lot of companies which release their software as open source make very good money today. More and more companies care about open standards. J software is a very open and responsive company. Maybe the customers feel safe anyway. Maybe it is limiting the development of J. It is up to J Software to decide what goals they have and under which business model they make the best profit. Cheers, Erling Hellenäs -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm -- J IRC Channel irc://irc.freenode.org/jsoftware -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
RE: [Jgeneral] Open Source, Open Standards ?
Hi all ! Thanks for an excellent answer to this question, as usual. A lot of companies which release their software as open source make very good money today. More and more companies care about open standards. J software is a very open and responsive company. Maybe the customers feel safe anyway. Maybe it is limiting the development of J. It is up to J Software to decide what goals they have and under which business model they make the best profit. Cheers, Erling Hellenäs -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Open Source, Open Standards ?
On 7/8/07, Terrence Brannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/7/07, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's also source code for an earlier version of J, visible from > http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/apl_archives/j/Welcome.html > (near the bottom of the page). The website's ftp server deos not serve - http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/apl_archives/j/j3/index.html Here's the sources I was trying to refer to: http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/apl_archives/j/early_j/src/j7/ That said, to get it to build under cygwin you need to add -ansi to CFLAGS in makefile, and you would probably have to mess around with js.h and x.c (and maybe a bit more) so it would link successfully. Anyways, any of the SYS_PC type targets will work if you comment out stuff in x.c not provided through cygwin. I think there's even a version 5 of J available free isnt there? I'm not sure what you are asking here. But if you mean j504, yes. -- Raul -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Open Source, Open Standards ?
On 7/7/07, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There's also source code for an earlier version of J, visible from http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/apl_archives/j/Welcome.html (near the bottom of the page). The website's ftp server deos not serve - http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/apl_archives/j/j3/index.html I think there's even a version 5 of J available free isnt there? -- J IRC Channel irc://irc.freenode.org/jsoftware -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Open Source, Open Standards ?
Raul Miller wrote: > For example, if I were writing an implementation of J, I would > prefer to incorporate the relevant specifications as embedded > comments, if not user accessible documentation. But I doubt > either would be legal. And, while I personally am comfortable > with the idea that if I were to write and release a J implementation > (that did not incorporate the actual text of the specification in the > body of code) that ISI would not take legal action against me, I'm > not sure that other people have the same level of comfort. The licence in the PostScript manual may be a model. Adobe reserves rights on - the trademark "PostScript" - the language specification However it allows anyone to - write programs in PostScript - write printer drivers that generate PostScript - write software to interpret programs in PostScript - copy Adobe's copyrighted list of commands to the extent necessary to use the PostScript language for the above purposes Best wishes, John -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Open Source, Open Standards ?
On 7/7/07, John Randall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: J has a published standard (the Dictionary) with a few hints as to what should be implemented efficiently (the targets for "special code" given in the release notes). However, there is only one closed-source, but noncommercial implementation. There's also source code for an earlier version of J, visible from http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/apl_archives/j/Welcome.html (near the bottom of the page). The problem, I think, is an issue of "derivative works". Under copyright law, the copyright holder "owns" works based on the ideas of the original publication. In practical terms, this protection lasts indefinitely. While, in principle, mathematical concepts are not supposed to be copyrightable, most people are uncertain what that means, legally, in the context of computers. Thus, even though Roger has stated that it's OK for people to write implementations of J based on the dictionary, since he is not the copyright holder (ISI is), it's still not very clear what is and is not legal. For example, if I were writing an implementation of J, I would prefer to incorporate the relevant specifications as embedded comments, if not user accessible documentation. But I doubt either would be legal. And, while I personally am comfortable with the idea that if I were to write and release a J implementation (that did not incorporate the actual text of the specification in the body of code) that ISI would not take legal action against me, I'm not sure that other people have the same level of comfort. -- Raul -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Open Source, Open Standards ?
On 7/7/07, Terrence Brannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/7/07, Devon McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think Roger has always taken the stance that the dictionary offers a > complete specification of the language, hence it is, in this sense, open. unfortunately, this sense is not good enough for the http://pleac.sf.net people - http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=m27ipl6ytc.fsf%40bluewin.ch i started implementing the examples and was told that J was not open and free enough to have its examples accepted. I do not see any obvious statements of what they will or will not accept. Why do you think that J's dictionary is the issue? -- Raul -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Open Source, Open Standards ?
On 7/7/07, Devon McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think Roger has always taken the stance that the dictionary offers a complete specification of the language, hence it is, in this sense, open. unfortunately, this sense is not good enough for the http://pleac.sf.net people - http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=m27ipl6ytc.fsf%40bluewin.ch i started implementing the examples and was told that J was not open and free enough to have its examples accepted. -- J IRC Channel irc://irc.freenode.org/jsoftware -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Open Source, Open Standards ?
Devon McCormick wrote: > I think Roger has always taken the stance that the dictionary offers a > complete > specification of the language, hence it is, in this sense, open. > There are many implementations of C, closed-source and open-source, which adhere to a variety standards more or less. I think a better example is PostScript/PDF. Adobe has published essentially complete specifications, but has a proprietary closed-source implementation. There are other commercial closed-source implementations (such as that used in HP PostScript printers and high-end RIPs). In addition there is GhostScript, which is open-source, and comes with either a GPL or a commercial licence. So in this case, the standard is set by a single company and, while the standard is published, it is not subject to alteration. There are, however, several implementations. J has a published standard (the Dictionary) with a few hints as to what should be implemented efficiently (the targets for "special code" given in the release notes). However, there is only one closed-source, but noncommercial implementation. This is similar to using only Acrobat for pdf files. As far as I know, there is nothing stopping anyone from developing another implementation of J, closed-source or otherwise. Those who are complaining should get busy. Best wishes, John -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Open Source, Open Standards ?
On 7/7/07, Don Guinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is the source for the C compiler available? How about source for debuggers etc.? If these things are not available then how can one say that C is open-source development but J is not? The source for gcc and gdb (as well as some other C compilers and, presumably, debugers) are available. So far, no one has written J implementations under similar licensing terms. The original J implementation was released in source form -- I think you can still download that from L.J.Dickey's archive at University of Waterloo -- but the license seems more restrictive than that of gcc/gdb. -- Raul -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Open Source, Open Standards ?
Is the source for the C compiler available? How about source for debuggers etc.? If these things are not available then how can one say that C is open-source development but J is not? On 7/7/07, Devon McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think Roger has always taken the stance that the dictionary offers a complete specification of the language, hence it is, in this sense, open. On 7/7/07, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/7/07, bill lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Raul Miller wrote: > > > Last I heard, C was a popular language for open-source development. > > > I'm aware of some proprietary standards for the language (for example, > > > C99), but not any "open standards". Can you point me at any? > > > > Isn't C99, like FORTRAN-77, an ISO standard? > > Yes, it's an ISO standard. > > However, as such, it's less "open" as a standard than J. > > Perhaps "proprietary" is too strong a word for standards which > are published openly but which are closed to derivatives. But > I do not see that the C language, as a standard, is more open > than the J language. > > -- > Raul > -- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > -- Devon McCormick, CFA ^me^ at acm. org is my preferred e-mail -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Open Source, Open Standards ?
I think Roger has always taken the stance that the dictionary offers a complete specification of the language, hence it is, in this sense, open. On 7/7/07, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/7/07, bill lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Raul Miller wrote: > > Last I heard, C was a popular language for open-source development. > > I'm aware of some proprietary standards for the language (for example, > > C99), but not any "open standards". Can you point me at any? > > Isn't C99, like FORTRAN-77, an ISO standard? Yes, it's an ISO standard. However, as such, it's less "open" as a standard than J. Perhaps "proprietary" is too strong a word for standards which are published openly but which are closed to derivatives. But I do not see that the C language, as a standard, is more open than the J language. -- Raul -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm -- Devon McCormick, CFA ^me^ at acm. org is my preferred e-mail -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Open Source, Open Standards ?
On 7/7/07, bill lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Raul Miller wrote: > Last I heard, C was a popular language for open-source development. > I'm aware of some proprietary standards for the language (for example, > C99), but not any "open standards". Can you point me at any? Isn't C99, like FORTRAN-77, an ISO standard? Yes, it's an ISO standard. However, as such, it's less "open" as a standard than J. Perhaps "proprietary" is too strong a word for standards which are published openly but which are closed to derivatives. But I do not see that the C language, as a standard, is more open than the J language. -- Raul -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Open Source, Open Standards ?
Raul Miller wrote: Last I heard, C was a popular language for open-source development. I'm aware of some proprietary standards for the language (for example, C99), but not any "open standards". Can you point me at any? Isn't C99, like FORTRAN-77, an ISO standard? -- regards, bill -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
Re: [Jgeneral] Open Source, Open Standards ?
On 7/7/07, Erling Hellenäs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think that today many are hesitating when it comes to using proprietary development tools and languages. Oh? Last I heard, C was a popular language for open-source development. I'm aware of some proprietary standards for the language (for example, C99), but not any "open standards". Can you point me at any? I suspect that the practical issues associated with deployment of J software are more significant in contexts involving widespread adoption of the language. -- Raul -- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
