Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 11:32 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: >>> So concretely. If you find a bug in GNU Classpath, it is OK if you test >>> against some other implementation and see what it does (run various >>> programs and tests). It isn't OK to go study the other implementation >>> code to see what it precisely does and then write the same code for GNU >>> Classpath. >> Obviously not, no. However, there is an enormous gulf between >> studying and copying, and you are muddying the waters by failing to >> distinguish between them. > > Sorry, it wasn't my intention to muddy any waters. What I meant is that > while writing code for gnu classpath you are studying code from another > implementation in a way which might lead to ending up with the exact > same implementation is a no-no. Studying free software code in general > of course is precisely why we write free software in the first place. > studying code to then copy it almost literally and putting a different > author contribution, copyright and distribution terms on it isn't > though. Thank you. That is perfectly reasonable, and much clearer than what you said before. Previously you said "don't study the implementation code from another implementation, you risk coming up with something identical". >> We run the risk of being in the situation where everyone is free to >> study OpenJDK except Classpath developers. I don't think this is >> justified by copyright law. You are taking an extreme interpretation >> of the law which I do not believe is in the best interests of the GNU >> project and GNU Classpath. It's always tempting to say "let's err on >> the side of safety", but in my opinion this is too far. > > OK, where would you like the safety side to be? That of reasonableness; study other free software, but don't copy it. The difference between research and plagiarism. >> Obviously, coming up with something identical and checking it in to >> GNU Classpath would not be allowed. But it's much more reasonable to >> say "don't do that, then" > > I believe that is what I am saying yes. OK. Andrew.
