Talk:Quine: Difference between revisions
→What is the license for the Forth example?: edit history clears things up a bit.
(→What is the license for the Forth example?: citation.) |
(→What is the license for the Forth example?: edit history clears things up a bit.) |
||
Line 27:
: Wow... could there exist a "restrictive" license for such a code? It's like saying Hello World is copied, and asking about the license for it (if someone did it and laws agree, I hope at least everyone will laugh at him!). Everyone, taking a look at a forth manual, e.g. I use [http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/gforth/Docs-html/The-Text-Interpreter.html#index-source-_0040var_007b-_002d_002d-addr-u---_007d--core-1444 this], can produce exactly the same code, without copying it from nowhere. (<code>Source</code> pushes the address of the current input buffer and its length LEN on stack: ADDR LEN; type "prints" LEN bytes starting from ADDR). Rather straightforward. If the ''copied'' is a problem, to me it's enough to strip the link (which anyway shows other more complex quines), and ask to some forth expert to produce in the smallest time the most straightforward quine using the smallest possible number of forth primitives. I bet it would write down "source type". --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 10:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
: 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)
| |||