[Caml-list] The new OCaml book (Objective Caml Programming Language by Tim Rentsch)
Richard Jones
promised a review copy from the publisher:
http://www.amazon.com/Objective-Caml-Programming-Language/dp/0981599206
I received the review copy from Abscissa Press yesterday and I have
read the first few chapters. This book is in fact the Jason Hickey
book which has been floating around on the net for a while, updated by
Tim Rentsch who I think is Jason's colleague or student.
First impressions are that it is technically solid, well formatted and
easy to read, and filled with lots of examples and exercises.
The first few chapters spend too long, IMO, on rather impractical
examples involving constructing values and interpreting types. (The
value restriction appears in Ch.5!) Practical examples of real code
come too late, I guess reflecting the university background of the
authors.
Nevertheless from what I've read so far I think it's a sound book for
students and for people who don't mind a slightly theoretical
introduction to the language, and I can definitely recommend it.
If anyone has any specific questions, they can catch me on IRC #ocaml
today.
Rich.
(Needless to say it's far better than the Apress book)
--
Richard Jones
Red Hat
_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
Richard Jones
> http://www.amazon.com/Objective-Caml-Programming-Language/dp/0981599206
BTW, in case the cover is unclear, it actually shows a space ship /
lander craft running OCaml code in the small window. Cool :-)
Rich.
Nathaniel Gray
> I previously mentioned this book on the list and said that I'd been
> promised a review copy from the publisher:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Objective-Caml-Programming-Language/dp/0981599206
>
> I received the review copy from Abscissa Press yesterday and I have
> read the first few chapters. This book is in fact the Jason Hickey
> book which has been floating around on the net for a while, updated by
> Tim Rentsch who I think is Jason's colleague or student.
As someone who *was* Jason's student, I'd suggest that if that book is
clearly derived from Jason's book but Jason's name isn't on the cover
you should definitely be asking questions about that. I would say
more but I don't want to put words in Jason's mouth.
Cheers,
-n8
--
Nathan Gray
http://www.n8gray.org/
Richard Jones
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Richard Jones <ri...@annexia.org> wrote:
> > I previously mentioned this book on the list and said that I'd been
> > promised a review copy from the publisher:
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/Objective-Caml-Programming-Language/dp/0981599206
> >
> > I received the review copy from Abscissa Press yesterday and I have
> > read the first few chapters. This book is in fact the Jason Hickey
> > book which has been floating around on the net for a while, updated by
> > Tim Rentsch who I think is Jason's colleague or student.
>
> As someone who *was* Jason's student, I'd suggest that if that book is
> clearly derived from Jason's book but Jason's name isn't on the cover
> you should definitely be asking questions about that. I would say
> more but I don't want to put words in Jason's mouth.
I don't think there is any suggestion that it was plagiarised from
him. In fact I think the author mentions Jason in the introduction ...
Rich.
--
Richard Jones
Red Hat
_______________________________________________
Alexy Khrabrov
announcement. It's a good reading for how the language constructs are
defined, but not too heavy on examples. I say it complements Smith's
and Harrop's books nicely in a way of a "boring" book going through
all of the language in sequence -- something which was sorely
missing. If you force yourself to read it in a day, you'll find new
things to old constructs when you're a an intermediate user.
Cheers,
Alexy
Nathaniel Gray
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Nathaniel Gray <n8g...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Richard Jones <ri...@annexia.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:37:05AM -0800, Nathaniel Gray wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Richard Jones <ri...@annexia.org> wrote:
>>> > I previously mentioned this book on the list and said that I'd been
>>> > promised a review copy from the publisher:
>>> >
>>> >
http://www.amazon.com/Objective-Caml-Programming-Language/dp/0981599206
>>> >
>>> > I received the review copy from Abscissa Press yesterday and I have
>>> > read the first few chapters. This book is in fact the Jason Hickey
>>> > book which has been floating around on the net for a while, updated by
>>> > Tim Rentsch who I think is Jason's colleague or student.
>>>
>>> As someone who *was* Jason's student, I'd suggest that if that book is
>>> clearly derived from Jason's book but Jason's name isn't on the cover
>>> you should definitely be asking questions about that. I would say
>>> more but I don't want to put words in Jason's mouth.
>>
>> I don't think there is any suggestion that it was plagiarised from
>> him. In fact I think the author mentions Jason in the introduction ...
>
> The list time I spoke to Jason he had a deal with a major publisher
> for his book. I think it's safe to say that there is no chance that
> Jason would allow somebody to publish his book or a derived work
> without his name on the cover.
William Neumann
"This book has been submitted for publication by Cambridge University Press.
This draft may be used until the time the book appears in print"
I don't know what the current status of that publication is, however.
2009/2/27 Nathaniel Gray <n8g...@gmail.com>
Jon Harrop
> I know a people have resorted to just printing out the pdf of the
> draft. Great to finally buy this in a normal form.
>
> Never heard of the publisher though.
Looks like the publisher was created just to publish this book, as we created
Flying Frog to publish OCaml for Scientists four years ago.
The publishers were kind enough to send me a complimentary copy so I shall
blog a review on OCaml News in due course. Suffice to say that the content
(264 pages from the main 17 chapters) is excellent from a purely theoretical
standpoint and, I would say, targets undergrad computer scientists preparing
to sit exams about OCaml. The book covers advanced topics in detail and
contains lots of academic exercises. In particular, about a third of the book
is devoted to OCaml's approach to object oriented programming.
--
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
Jon Harrop
> The Jan. 11, 2008 pdf copy of his book says:
>
> "This book has been submitted for publication by Cambridge University
> Press. This draft may be used until the time the book appears in print"
>
> I don't know what the current status of that publication is, however.
Sounds like the ideal time to concoct some conspiracy theories. Perhaps Jason
signed up with CUP for royalties and they sat on the book so Tim "remembered"
that he was actually the real author and had it published through a company
that is actually a front for Primatech paper:
Any takers?
--
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
_______________________________________________
Jason Hickey
Thank you for pointing this out, I was unaware of this book. My book
on OCaml (currently circulating as an online pdf) is under contract
with Cambridge University Press.
I haven't read Mr. Rentsch's book (I just ordered a copy from Amazon).
I should point out that I have neither authorized nor endorsed Mr.
Rentsch's book, nor have I given permission to use any text that I
have written. It would be heartbreaking to me if this work were to be
published without my permission -- I started writing in 2000, and the
text has been through many classes and much writing. I must assume
Tim wrote his text independently. Still, I look forward to seeing a
copy.
Jason
Phil Tomson
> I previously mentioned this book on the list and said that I'd been
> promised a review copy from the publisher:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Objective-Caml-Programming-Language/dp/0981599206
>
> I received the review copy from Abscissa Press yesterday and I have
> read the first few chapters. This book is in fact the Jason Hickey
> book which has been floating around on the net for a while, updated by
> Tim Rentsch who I think is Jason's colleague or student.
>
> First impressions are that it is technically solid, well formatted and
> easy to read, and filled with lots of examples and exercises.
>
> The first few chapters spend too long, IMO, on rather impractical
> examples involving constructing values and interpreting types. (The
> value restriction appears in Ch.5!) Practical examples of real code
> come too late, I guess reflecting the university background of the
> authors.
>
> Nevertheless from what I've read so far I think it's a sound book for
> students and for people who don't mind a slightly theoretical
> introduction to the language, and I can definitely recommend it.
>
> If anyone has any specific questions, they can catch me on IRC #ocaml
> today.
>
> Rich.
>
> (Needless to say it's far better than the Apress book)
>
I never read the Apress book because it was so roundly panned.
I've read the first 4 or 5 chapters of this Rentsch book and I tend to
agree with our assessment. It's no "Real World Haskell" and it
probably could have benefited from the input of an O'Reilly editor (as
I'm sure RWH did). But as an intro it seems not bad. I don't like
that some important concepts seem to be introduced in the exercises
(again, an academic approach) and as a lot of folks tend to skip or
skim exercises that may not be the best approach. I'm still a bit of
an OCaml newbie, so I'm looking forward to the section on functors.
Phil
Jon Harrop
> Thank you for pointing this out, I was unaware of this book. My book
> on OCaml (currently circulating as an online pdf) is under contract
> with Cambridge University Press.
When will CUP publish it?
> I haven't read Mr. Rentsch's book (I just ordered a copy from Amazon).
> I should point out that I have neither authorized nor endorsed Mr.
> Rentsch's book, nor have I given permission to use any text that I
> have written. It would be heartbreaking to me if this work were to be
> published without my permission -- I started writing in 2000, and the
> text has been through many classes and much writing. I must assume
> Tim wrote his text independently. Still, I look forward to seeing a
> copy.
Oh dear. Then I am very sorry to tell you that Tim Rentsch's book is virtually
identical to your own, having been tweaked just enough to evade copyright.
I am just comparing your PDF with the free copy Abscissa Press sent me and it
is almost a verbatim replica right down to errors in your text and parts of
code examples that you chose at random (e.g. all of the example expressions
involving chars and strings are literally identical to those from your book).
Dario Teixeira
Hi,
> Oh dear. Then I am very sorry to tell you that Tim Rentsch's book is
> virtually identical to your own, having been tweaked just enough to
> evade copyright.
Should this be confirmed (namely by Jason Hickey himself), the comments
section at Amazon and other online stores may prove useful in pointing
people to Jason's book instead (once it comes out)...
Cheers,
Dario Teixeira
Richard Jones
> The Jan. 11, 2008 pdf copy of his book says:
>
> "This book has been submitted for publication by Cambridge University Press.
> This draft may be used until the time the book appears in print"
>
> I don't know what the current status of that publication is, however.
Well that was probably before CUP decided to lay off 150 staff:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/7890037.stm
Rich.
--
Richard Jones
Red Hat
_______________________________________________
Richard Jones
> Thank you for pointing this out, I was unaware of this book. My book
> on OCaml (currently circulating as an online pdf) is under contract
> with Cambridge University Press.
>
> I haven't read Mr. Rentsch's book (I just ordered a copy from Amazon).
> I should point out that I have neither authorized nor endorsed Mr.
> Rentsch's book, nor have I given permission to use any text that I
> have written. It would be heartbreaking to me if this work were to be
> published without my permission -- I started writing in 2000, and the
> text has been through many classes and much writing. I must assume
> Tim wrote his text independently. Still, I look forward to seeing a
> copy.
Right, I just read this - so ignore my comment(s) in the other threads.
This is definitely entering into the world of strange.
The "Tim Rentsch" book is, seemingly, an updated copy of the Jason
Hickey draft that has been floating around on the internet.
Unauthorized, it would seem.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones
Red Hat
_______________________________________________
Phil Tomson
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:22:04PM -0800, Jason Hickey wrote:
> > Thank you for pointing this out, I was unaware of this book. My book
> > on OCaml (currently circulating as an online pdf) is under contract
> > with Cambridge University Press.
>
> > I haven't read Mr. Rentsch's book (I just ordered a copy from Amazon).
> > I should point out that I have neither authorized nor endorsed Mr.
> > Rentsch's book, nor have I given permission to use any text that I
> > have written. It would be heartbreaking to me if this work were to be
> > published without my permission -- I started writing in 2000, and the
> > text has been through many classes and much writing. I must assume
> > Tim wrote his text independently. Still, I look forward to seeing a
> > copy.
>
> Right, I just read this - so ignore my comment(s) in the other threads.
>
> This is definitely entering into the world of strange.
>
> The "Tim Rentsch" book is, seemingly, an updated copy of the Jason
> Hickey draft that has been floating around on the internet.
> Unauthorized, it would seem.
>
Yep. It's been a while since I took a look at Mr. Hickey's pdf. I
just downloaded it again and compared the table of contents the
Rentsch book to the TOC of the Hickey pdf and they are virtually
identical. Mr. Rentsch has some 'splain'n to do. Now I feel ripped
off for having bought this book.
Going to Amazon right now to mention this in the review section.
Phil
Phil Tomson
> Richard,
>
> Thank you for pointing this out, I was unaware of this book. My book
> on OCaml (currently circulating as an online pdf) is under contract
> with Cambridge University Press.
>
> I haven't read Mr. Rentsch's book (I just ordered a copy from Amazon).
> I should point out that I have neither authorized nor endorsed Mr.
> Rentsch's book, nor have I given permission to use any text that I
> have written. It would be heartbreaking to me if this work were to be
> published without my permission -- I started writing in 2000, and the
> text has been through many classes and much writing. I must assume
> Tim wrote his text independently. Still, I look forward to seeing a
> copy.
>
> Jason
Jason,
Here's what Mr. Rentsch says in the Preface to his (your) book under
Acknowledgments:
"Finally, all this would not have come to pass were it not for a
collaboration with Jason Hickey; this book is based on an unpublished
joint work by Jason Hickey and myself."
Phil
Jon Harrop
> Oh dear. Then I am very sorry to tell you that Tim Rentsch's book is
> virtually identical to your own, having been tweaked just enough to evade
> copyright.
Actually the later chapters (about a third of the main text) are entirely
different.
Tim Rentsch
The quoted remarks appended below, sent out to Caml-list yesterday,
have just come to my attention. I'm not sure what Jason intended
with his post, but I thought I should respond to clear up possible
confusion or misimpressions. Earlier this week, a potential reviewer
contacted by Abscissa Press asked about similarities between TOCPL
and an online document he understood to represent a book to be
published by Jason. Here is a copy of the response sent to him:
It's good you asked the question because certainly the situation
could be confusing. "The Objective Caml Programming Language" is
derived from an earlier unpublished joint work by Jason Hickey and
Tim Rentsch; if you look in the Preface in Rentsch's book you will
see an attribution to this effect, mentioning Jason Hickey by name.
Dr. Hickey has been aware of plans to publish a separate book based
on their earlier joint work, and has asked only that he be given an
attribution, which of course we were happy to do.
The earlier collaboration started in early 2004 and continued until
early 2007. There were negotiations for the joint work underway
with Cambridge University Press at that time, but when the authors
couldn't agree on terms, each decided to proceed independently.
Our understanding is that Hickey's forthcoming book with CUP is
supposed to be based on previous material and not on material
developed as part of the joint work, but even so, given the history,
it wouldn't be surprising if there were lots of similarities. We
don't know how similar the two books might actually be. As far as
we know the CUP book has not yet been published. We haven't yet had
the opportunity to review the webpage material for the link you
sent, and of course we don't know if that material is what will end
up being published. None of that changes the basic answer to your
question, which is that there are two similar texts because authors
who had been working together later decided to proceed and publish
independently.
Of course Jason may have been unaware that TOCPL had been published;
however, despite whatever impressions his comments might offer, he
certainly was aware that I was working on an Objective Caml book
based on our earlier joint work.
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:22:04 -0800
> Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The new OCaml book (Objective Caml Programming
> Language by Tim Rentsch)
> From: Jason Hickey <j...@cs.caltech.edu>
> To: caml...@yquem.inria.fr
>
> Richard,
>
> Thank you for pointing this out, I was unaware of this book. My book
> on OCaml (currently circulating as an online pdf) is under contract
> with Cambridge University Press.
>
> I haven't read Mr. Rentsch's book (I just ordered a copy from Amazon).
> I should point out that I have neither authorized nor endorsed Mr.
> Rentsch's book, nor have I given permission to use any text that I
> have written. It would be heartbreaking to me if this work were to be
> published without my permission -- I started writing in 2000, and the
> text has been through many classes and much writing. I must assume
> Tim wrote his text independently. Still, I look forward to seeing a
> copy.
>
> Jason
>
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> > On Friday 27 February 2009 14:28:58 Tom Hutchinson wrote:
> >> I know a people have resorted to just printing out the pdf of the
> >> draft. Great to finally buy this in a normal form.
> >>
> >> Never heard of the publisher though.
> >
> > Looks like the publisher was created just to publish this book, as we created
> > Flying Frog to publish OCaml for Scientists four years ago.
> >
> > The publishers were kind enough to send me a complimentary copy so I shall
> > blog a review on OCaml News in due course. Suffice to say that the content
> > (264 pages from the main 17 chapters) is excellent from a purely theoretical
> > standpoint and, I would say, targets undergrad computer scientists preparing
> > to sit exams about OCaml. The book covers advanced topics in detail and
> > contains lots of academic exercises. In particular, about a third of the book
> > is devoted to OCaml's approach to object oriented programming.
> >
Tim Rentsch
email list, but lately I've been busy with other things and haven't
been reading it. Since this topic has come up obviously I plan on
starting reading it again, and also reviewing recent messages to
see if any others should be responded to. I should be starting
that review sometime later today, and responding (if necessary)
over the next day or so, depending on what's been posted.
Phil Tomson
OK, this whole situation has become quite bizarre. There appears to
be other things going on in the background between Mr. Rentsch and Mr.
Hickey that none of us here are privy to. I take back my earlier
comments. It sounds like the parties involved (and the publishers)
will need to hash this out in a more formal (perhaps legal) venue. In
the meantime I'm neutral.
The book itself has merit, I just hope all the controversy gets sorted
out.
Phil
Tim Rentsch
I've now had an opportunity to catch up on the caml-list emails
over the last month or so, and review those relating to my book
"The Objective Caml Programming Language." I see there's been a
lot a speculation about what happened. To help clear things up,
I've written a more detailed version of the history between Jason
and myself, and our working together, and some related items that
have happened since then. I may also reply later to specific
emails on an individual basis, but for right now it seems best to
send out just the history, and let the facts speak for themselves.
================
I first met Jason Hickey in January 2004. Jason was teaching a
class I was interested in; I introduced myself as a Caltech alum
and asked if it would be okay if I sat in on his class. One of
the course materials was Jason's Introduction to OCaml course
notes, which I expect many or most of you have seen.
A little bit later that year -- I think it was March, but it
could have been February or possibly April -- I approached Jason
and asked if he was interested in turning the course notes into
a book and would he like my help with the publishing process.
He said yes to both questions, and we started working together
soon after that, continuing until early January 2007.
Originally I was expecting to do some light (sentence level)
editing, various mundane tasks related to finding a publisher,
working with their production people, etc., and perhaps have a
few discussions about organization of later chapters in the book.
Over time that changed significantly, going on to include:
developing outlines, keeping manuscript to-do lists, discussions
about reorganization, original writing, paragraph-level editing,
discussions about appropriate coding style, researching some of
the more obscure corners of OCaml, paragraph- and section-level
rewriting, developing exercises, writing answers to exercises,
writing example OCaml code, and numerous small tasks related to
text preparation. Between March 2004 and January 2007 I did all
of these things as part of working with Jason to get a manuscript
ready; I edited, wrote, or re-wrote, every part of the text, in
most cases not once but several times.
In the second half of 2006 Jason and I talked about publishers
and we set out to find a suitable publisher. I know we discussed
several, maybe four or five, but the only ones I definitely
remember talking to were Springer and Cambridge University Press.
I did most of the contact phoning/emailing with the Springer
people, and Jason did most of the contact with the CUP people (of
course Jason and I usually would send or forward copies of these
emails to each other). In both sets of conversations I was
identified as a co-author.
In about mid-January 2007, as part of our trying to sign a
publishing agreement with CUP, it became clear that there was a
misunderstanding about what we thought had been communicated
between us about what our internal arrangement would be (the
"we/us" here being Jason and myself); although we had talked
about what our arrangement would be a couple of times over the
years, we'd never decided on any specific arrangement, not even
informally. At that point we suspended working on the manuscript
while we tried to find a way to reach a mutually acceptable
agreement. Those negotiations continued for some time, as I
recall about eight or ten weeks, but ultimately were not
successful.
After that, Jason decided to pursue an independent arrangement
with Cambridge University Press on his own. Subsequently I
decided to proceed with a book based on our unpublished joint
work, or I might say starting with, because there was still a lot
to be done before TOCPL was ready to be published. Jason was
contacted by mail to ask about arrangements for him to receive
half of any royalty payments, which he's entitled to since TOCPL
is based on a joint work by the two of us. Jason wrote back and
said he did not wish to be financially involved with my book. He
also declined to be named as a co-author. He did ask for an
acknowledgment, which is given right at the end of the Preface in
TOCPL.
Since our working together stopped in January 2007, I haven't
looked at any writing on OCaml that Jason has done since then,
including the online document that I have now seen referenced and
is supposed to be under submission to Cambridge University Press.
Alexy Khrabrov
saw it announced here, but now have second thoughts.
From what you describe, it's clear to me that Jason is the originator
of the book and you did the auxiliary tasks. Noe amount of calling up
publishers can substitute for teaching a class at Caltech and
distilling a teachable text out of it. Jason is known for OCaml
software co-developed with his students, and I only found a few
messages from you on this list.
IMHO, if you didn't come to an arrangement, too bad for you; but it
doesn't mean you can come up with other alternatives excluding Jason.
I can imagine lots of folks working for publishers doing lots of
technical assistance, but not asking for their name to be on a book.
If there was a disagreement, you could have excluded any material
based on Jason's notes, and started from scratch; but not at 2/3 of
the book. As a friend of mine likes to say: "I'm afraid you have to
go see Dr. Toughshitsky about this."
The era of self-publishing also shows that Amazon doesn't replace a
publisher -- they don't check the rights and pedigrees of books as
publishers used to. But they do have reviews where folks can say what
they think of this situation. The pre-emptive self-publishing can't
replace years of teaching and authorship -- the US legal system is
good enough to sort this out and deliver justice, alas often after
much agony and expense for all parties.
I believe it's best for Tim to retract his book ASAP; otherwise it
might be done by Jason and CUP via legal means. All of this is not
helping OCaml.
Overall, I can't help seeing that any author who isn't known on this
list ends up with a questionable book -- first Smith and now Rentsch.
Perhaps the elders should form a book vetting committee? As a
heuristics, since the community is still rather small and coherent,
the rule works -- if you can't grep much on the author in this list,
ask questions!
Cheers,
Alexy
Xavier Leroy
> list ends up with a questionable book -- first Smith and now Rentsch.
> Perhaps the elders should form a book vetting committee?
Well, the power to decide is in the hands of publishers (initially)
and customers (later). But I can assure you that reputable publishing
houses like Springer, Cambridge University Press or MIT Press do
sollicit opinions from academics like me and take them into account.
Their area editors attend major conferences like Principles of
Programming Languages and it's always a pleasure to chat with them.
But there isn't much that can be done with less reputable publishers
and self-publishing, as Alexy remarked.
Coming back to the Hickey/Rentsch book(s), I feel deeply sad about
the mess that is unfolding on this list. I proofread a draft of Jason
Hickey's book, at his request, and found it very good and just what
the OCaml community is still missing: a well-written, English-language
book on Caml appropriate both as a reference and as teaching material.
(I'm not criticizing the other books in english on OCaml -- thanks God
they exist! -- just noting that they don't quite fit this exact purpose.)
What we now have is lawsuit material... I sincerely hope some kind of
agreement can still be found at this point.
- Xavier Leroy
Jon Harrop
> > Overall, I can't help seeing that any author who isn't known on this
> > list ends up with a questionable book -- first Smith and now Rentsch.
> > Perhaps the elders should form a book vetting committee?
>
> Well, the power to decide is in the hands of publishers (initially)
> and customers (later). But I can assure you that reputable publishing
> houses like Springer, Cambridge University Press or MIT Press do
> sollicit opinions from academics like me and take them into account.
> Their area editors attend major conferences like Principles of
> Programming Languages and it's always a pleasure to chat with them.
> But there isn't much that can be done with less reputable publishers
> and self-publishing, as Alexy remarked.
I would advise against getting conventional publishers involved at all and
would, instead, strongly advocate self-publishing because of the freedom and
efficiency that it offers. Indeed, the only reason Jason Hickey's book has
not been published is because CUP were challenged with the task.
On a related note, why was the English translation of the book "Developing
applications with Objective Caml" not published by O'Reilly?
> Coming back to the Hickey/Rentsch book(s), I feel deeply sad about
> the mess that is unfolding on this list. I proofread a draft of Jason
> Hickey's book, at his request, and found it very good and just what
> the OCaml community is still missing: a well-written, English-language
> book on Caml appropriate both as a reference and as teaching material.
> (I'm not criticizing the other books in english on OCaml -- thanks God
> they exist! -- just noting that they don't quite fit this exact purpose.)
> What we now have is lawsuit material... I sincerely hope some kind of
> agreement can still be found at this point.
I see no reason for a lawsuit. Jason Hickey simply needs to remove Tim
Rentsch's contributions, remove him from the acknowledgements and publish
what's left. Given the size of the book, that will only take about a month.
If he already signed copyright over to CUP then he also needs to make minimal
changes to evade copyright infringement (which they will not attempt to
enforce in the absence of any profits from sales anyway) and publish it
elsewhere.
Either way I see no reason why the OCaml community cannot benefit from yet
another great book on OCaml in the near future.
I agree that this text would also fill a valuable place in the spectrum of
OCaml books. The contents are clearly ideal for students but would also give
computer science graduates an extensive theoretical understanding of OCaml.
--
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
_______________________________________________
Tim Rentsch
on the situation. Before you completely make up your mind I would
like to offer some other perspectives to consider.
It's a given that Jason had more OCaml background and experience
than I did, especially at the beginning of our working together, and
also that his original course notes gave us a good start. But there
was still a lot of writing work to do, even just for topics already
covered, before the earlier material would make it up to the level
of being book-ready. And it isn't like Jason would work in some
sections and I would work in others. We both worked in every part
of the new manuscript, and that work was substantial; I wouldn't be
at all surprised to find that each of us spent more time working on
the joint manuscript than was spent altogether previously.
Because of the nature of our collaboration, it's harder to see the
value of my contribution in earlier chapters, but I believe that
value is there and that it's significant. That might be hard to
see comparing my book and Jason's current manuscript; has anyone
considered comparing our joint manuscript against the original
course notes? Let me be clear that I'm not suggesting any
intentional impropriety on Jason's part. However, it's hard not to
be unconsciously influenced by past memories during subsequent
writing. If Jason's current manuscript inadvertently makes use of
value I brought to the joint manuscript, what should be done about
that?
As to what should be done considering the similarities between my
book and Jason's manuscript, I was surprised by your suggestion that
my book be withdrawn. Legally, the manuscript Jason and I worked on
is viewed as a joint work and we are equal co-owners, but even
ignoring that, I don't think what I've done is inappropriate. I'm
confident that I'm responsible for more than half the value of
TOCPL. I was willing for Jason to be listed as co-author. I've
tried to make arrangements to pay Jason the royalties that I think
he's entitled to. Furthermore I wouldn't have done the book if I
thought it didn't have unique value of its own to offer; part of my
motivation is a sincere desire to contribute to a wider awareness
of the benefits of ML-style functional programming.
I see that there are other messages in this thread so let me stop
here and continue on to the other messages.
Tim
Stefano Zacchiroli
/ licensing issues like this one. What I contribute below
descends only from that---potentially limited---experience. ]
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 10:59:12PM -0800, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> If Jason's current manuscript inadvertently makes use of value I
> brought to the joint manuscript, what should be done about that?
Dear Tim, reading your messages I do believe you acted in good faith.
Unfortunately though, under copyright law in most countries, your work
is a derivative of a work started by Jason, no matter how much you
contributed to it afterwords. Hence, at best (that would depend on the
amount of work you contributed in most cases), it can be considered as
a joint-work of which you both are Copyright holders.
> Legally, the manuscript Jason and I worked on is viewed as a joint
> work and we are equal co-owners, but even ignoring that, I don't
> think what I've done is inappropriate. I'm confident that I'm
> responsible for more than half the value of TOCPL. I was willing
> for Jason to be listed as co-author. I've tried to make
> arrangements to pay Jason the royalties that I think he's entitled
> to.
Precisely because you two are co-owners (assuming the best-case
scenario above), it doesn't matter that you *proposed* him royalties
and co-authorship. Given that he refused, you are not allowed to go
ahead all alone.
You should have kept only the material for which you were the sole
copyright holder[*], and started from scratch with everything else.
Cheers.
[*] and you should better be able to prove that, in case Tim intends
to push charges
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Ed Keith
Something seems to be wrong with the list, this is the 18th copy of this one message I have received! I am receiving 2 to 4 copies of most messages.
-EdK
Ed Keith
e_...@yahoo.com
Blog: edkeith.blogspot.com
--- On Mon, 3/2/09, Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
From: Jon Harrop <j...@ffconsultancy.com>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] The new OCaml book (Objective Caml Programming Language by Tim Rentsch)
To: caml...@yquem.inria.fr
Date: Monday, March 2, 2009, 8:29 PM
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Jason Hickey
I apologize for my silence. I have very strong feelings for this
community. I have benefited quite profoundly from Caml (starting when
I first wrote Metaprl in caml-light), and I wish to continue my role
as an advocate, supporter, and instructor. Before I can say anything,
I think it is important to wait until I have seen a copy of the text.
Amazon promises me it will arrive by Friday, so we shall see.
For now, let me just mention that there is considerable documentation
available online if one wishes to assess the history/pedigree of the
text. The course sites point to various versions of the book, usually
under the "Resources" section for Caltech CS134b. Here is an early
version of the text I used in 2002.
http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~jyh/classes/cs134/cs134b/2002/book.pdf
Initially I wrote the book in Metaprl, then I later switched to LaTeX,
so there are a couple of separate subversion repositories (use "svn ls
<link>" and similar commands).
December 2000 -- April 2006:
http://svn.metaprl.org/svnroot/mojave/metaprl/theories/ocaml_doc@9228
April 2006 -- Jan 2007:
http://svn.metaprl.org/svnroot/papers/trunk/ocaml_book
subversion stats:
jyh: 267 revisions, lines added/removed: +293342, -216176
nogin: 29 revisions, lines: +16441, -12339
txr: 36 revisions, lines: +13958, -4536
(nogin is Aleksey Nogin, a post-doc and good friend; his changes were technical)
In Jan 2007, I had the dispute with Mr. Rentsch where I thought his
claims were overly grandiose, and I rolled back the text to 2003 and
started over.
http://svn.metaprl.org/svnroot/papers/trunk/ocaml_book
The current text is submitted and ready for publication since Jan
2008, but it has been delayed. Mr. Rentsch made a formal request to
CUP to review the manuscript. We sent him a copy in Jan 2008; he
acknowledged receipt, but the status has been in limbo while we await
his review. I now believe that this may have been a delaying
tactic...
It is a bit ironic that Mr. Rentsch did not extend me the same
courtesy, so that now I must be silent until Amazon fulfills my order!
It is difficult to be silent, I feel a great deal of fear, but it
cannot yet be grounded. We shall see.
Jason
Jason Hickey
> December 2000 -- April 2006:
> http://svn.metaprl.org/svnroot/mojave/metaprl/theories/ocaml_doc@9228
> April 2006 -- Jan 2007:
> http://svn.metaprl.org/svnroot/papers/trunk/ocaml_book
Too many versions... The second one has a typo, it should be:
April 2006 -- Jan 2007:
http://svn.metaprl.org/svnroot/papers-book/trunk/ocaml_book
Damien Doligez
On 2009-03-04, at 14:39, Ed Keith wrote:
> Something seems to be wrong with the list, this is the 18th copy of
> this one message I have received! I am receiving 2 to 4 copies of
> most messages.
>
> -EdK
>
> Ed Keith
> e_...@yahoo.com
Apparently, this happens only to (some) Yahoo users. You should try
to contact
Yahoo support.
-- Damien
Matthieu Wipliez
Thanks. For me, the problem has disappeared since March 5th :-) (but I had contacted Yahoo anyway, I guess they must have had quite some complaints about that!).
Maybe it's time they switch to OCaml ? ;-)
Cheers,
Matthieu
----- Message d'origine ----
> De : Damien Doligez <damien....@inria.fr>
> À : Ed Keith <e_...@yahoo.com>
> Cc : caml...@yquem.inria.fr
> Envoyé le : Mardi, 10 Mars 2009, 13h51mn 02s
> Objet : Re: [Caml-list] problems with Yahoo?