Hi Andrew, 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. > 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? > 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. > than to forbid free software programmers > from studying free software. Put that way, it's plainly absurd, but > that is what you are saying. I don't understand what you are saying here. Cheers, Mark
