On 18-Mar-1999, chris angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was under the impression that Haskell the language (and by inference any
> definition of Haskell) were "free", period. i.e. may be distributed freely
> in a GNU/GPL manner.
>
> is this not correct?
No.
This impression shows a lack of understanding of intellectual property law.
Intellectual property law is quite complicated, so this is quite forgivable,
but nevertheless for anyone involved in the software industry (and by this
I include software related research) it is quite well worth investing
some time in learning about copyrights, patents, and trademarks, and
what can be and cannot be covered by each of these.
Generally programming languages themselves are always free, i.e. very
few people have ever tried to copyright a language, and when they have,
the courts have for the most part rejected such attempts (e.g. see [1]).
It is of course possible to trademark the _name_ of a language, as for
example Sun have trademarked the name "Java", and as was the case with
"Miranda". It is also possible to patent techniques that might be
required to implement a language. And finally you can of course copyright
the language's reference manual. However, the law doesn't really provide
any form of intellectual property that can cover the language itself.
Copyright only protects expression of an idea, not the idea itself.
So Haskell the language is free in the sense that anyone can use the
name (since the name Haskell is not trademarked), anyone can implement it,
and anyone can write documentation for it, without needing to get anyone
else's permission first.
But if I were to write a definition of Haskell called say
"Fergus Henderson's definition of Haskell", expressed in my own words
but defining the same language as the Haskell report, then that would
be _my_ document. That is, I would own the copyright to that document,
and you would not be allowed to copy it without my permission
(except as is expressly permitted under copyright law,
e.g. "fair use" for purposes of review, criticism, satire, etc.)
Similarly, the authors of the Haskell Report own the copyright
on that document, and no-one is legally allowed to copy it
without their permission (except as is expressly permitted under
copyright law, e.g. "fair use" for purposes of review, criticism,
satire, etc.)
References:
[1] Powerflex Services Pty Ltd v Data Access Corporation [1997] 490
Federal Court of Australia (4 June 1997).
<http://www.austlii.edu.au/do2/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/1997/
490.html?query=%7Ecopyright%20dataflex>
--
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
