Talk:Quine: Difference between revisions

Line 28:

: Ick. Being on Rosetta Code, it's licensed GFDL whenever distributed by us. But being that it's copied from another site, there's a question of whether the other site's license is violated. As for what license that would be...Under US copyright law, anything without an explicit copyright label is assumed to be under an "all rights reserved" scenario. However, I think that with appropriate citation, it's acceptable. I'm not sure if what's there qualifies as appropriate citation, though; Someone who knows more about published papers would be a better judge of that. --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 22:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

: After looking at the edit history, I very strongly suspect that Shin created it on his own, and IanOsgood added a link to the list later. So I think we're completely kosher on this one, though the wording should probably be a bit more clear that the code wasn't copied. AFAIK, if Infinite Monkey Corp independently came up with Romeo and Juliet, they'd be every bit as entitled to its copyright as Shakespeare. (Assuming modern times...) --[[User:Short Circuit|Short Circuit]] 22:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

:: No, I haven't written the code (as far as I remember I have not contributed to any forth code yet; surely not to quine anyway), or I would have said that here. I simply said that noone can claim a copyright on such a small piece of code, except maybe the creator of the forth language. The code simply says "get the buffer where the source text is, and print it"; provided that a language has a primitive to "print" and one to get such information, everyone able to read a manual can, '''without copying''', produce this quine. If it is not stack based, one could say something like "printf("%s", get_source());" (interpreted C?)... Anyway, if it is an issue, one could try to contact Neal Bridges ([http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/quine-complex.fs named here]), maybe he wrote it (or know who can have written it), altogether with more complex quine(s) (and these can't be copied without thinking about a lincense, since hardly one can reproduce them only reading the forth manual...); it appears [http://www.nyx.net/~gthompso/self_forth.txt here also] (author unknown! and cheating suspect...).

:: Someone wrote it, maybe after forth manual reading, or maybe taking a look on the net... and IanOsgood added just the link to a list of forth quines, among these there's also "ours". I think there are not license violation (I imagine RC must care a lot about these ''details''), but I am not a lawyer (rather in this case I would like to be a lawyer-eater) --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 00:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)