[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gcl-devel] Odd idea...
From: |
jeff |
Subject: |
Re: [Gcl-devel] Odd idea... |
Date: |
Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:59:12 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.3 |
Quoting C Y <address@hidden>:
> > If the protection on the spec is copyright, there shouldn't be
> > any problem for implementations.
>
> I'm assuming that's the case, but I'm just curious about distinguishing
> between spec and code.
I'm not sure what you think is relevantly the same about them.
> > "Ideas, Methods, or Systems are not subject to copyright
> > protection. Copyright protection, therefore, is not available
> > for: ideas or procedures for doing, making, or building things;
>
> Isn't that exactly what any specification is though - a procedure for
> making and building a language?
What's protected by copyright is the way the spec is expressed,
rather than the programming language it describes.
It's even possible to have a different document that describes
the same language without violating the copyright.
> Right, but since the spec document IS in a sense a "procedure" or
> "method of operation" I'm not sure quite what the distinction is.
I don't think's that's what the book IS. The programming language
might be considered a procedure or method of operation, but the
language (Common Lisp) isn't protected by copyright. Or, if you
prefer, that procedure / method aspect of the book isn't protected
by copyright.
> ... if you take a book and translate it into another language,
> IIRC that is a derivative work and requires permission from the
> original copyright holder. Couldn't an ANSI Common Lisp implementation
> essentially be viewed as a translation of the spec from English
> to C or some other programming language?
A translation runs into the copyright protection because it
so closely follows the original. But that doesn't mean someone
else can't tell the same story in a different way.
Indeed, a second translation of the same original doesn't
need permission from the copyright owner of the first
translation unless it follows it closely.
> Just curious. Anyway, more to the point would be how to get the status
> of the ANSI draft standard clarified.
What's not clear about it?
-- jeff