Re: More questions about the QPL for a compiler
On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:07:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
> "Sylvain LE GALL" <sylvain.le-gall@polytechnique.org> 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 ( foreign
> > call ), VM et al
> >
> > The first set ( compiler ) is under QPL, the second set is under LGPL
> > with Ocaml exception. This means, you can produce binary using LGPL (
> > with Ocaml exception ) only licenced ocaml objects...
>
> 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 the part actually
> written out by the compiler -- are part of the compiler. And they end
> up linked with my code.
>
> It's hard for me to believe that the compiler doesn't write any
> creative bits into its output -- though maybe there really has been
> effort to put those all into the runtime.
>
Well -- using your arguments, let me claim that every french book in
the world fall under the copyright of "Grammaire Francaise". I am not
sure whom belongs this licence ( maybe "Bled" should be the good one
)...
In other word : the translation made by the compiler is a translation.
The original idea which can be copyrighted comes from the code which are
translated... No compiler produces automatic meaningfull code...
Compilers are made to simplify the task of producing binary code, but
they only mimics what human should have written for code. Compilers --
even the actual clever one -- doesn't have the skill to write loop code
better than human...
Compilers are just tool to manage complexity... There are not really
clever -- and they don't produce copyrighted things ( or maybe they take
contact by themselves with the patent office, to say : "well, i have
written a new loop, and this one is really good, could i copyright it ?"
)
This mail is ridiculous -- sorry,
Regard
Sylvain Le Gall
ps : the Categorical Abstract Machine ( ie the CAM ) is clever, but it
just interprets the code to have a good view of it, this is the main
QPLed part of "o CAM l"
Reply to: