On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Pavel Roskin <proski@xxxxxxx> wrote:> On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 20:39 -0400, Anderson Lizardo wrote:>>> Some notes:>>>> - I decided to take a more pragmatic approach and start implementing>> only those functions necessary for writing a test-*.c like backend>> - For now I'm just doing a plain manual translation of the sparse C>> code to Python, thus forcing me to read the entire sparse code (which>> IMHO is a good thing for achieving reason (2))>> I'm surprised that you decided to relicense your work under GPLv2.> Even though you are rewriting the code, it's still possible to argue> that the original authors have rights to the code.>> It may be safer to use the original license, or you should make sure> that the copyright holders are fine with what you are doing. IANAL, but I had the impression that a copyright is applied to thespecific implementation of the work (and derivative works, such asextensions or modifications to the original code) itself and not tothe algorithm. I presume my code is not a "derived work" from thesparse code, even though I claim I'm "manually translating" to pythonsome parts of it. Unfortanely the "The Open Software License" does noteven describe what consists a "derivative work". That said, I'd like to hear from some copyright holders about thisissue. I have plans to use my code with future projects that I'm sureI'll not use OSL, and reading fromhttp://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ I can see the OSL license isGPL-imcompatible. >> - Along the way I'm rewriting some code to become more OO-friendly>> (with classes, methods etc.), therefore while the code is not finished>> you will see a lot of mixed procedural and OO code>> I think it's a good idea, because sparse should be flexible. It should> be possible to change it for different coding standards. A python> implementation would be good, but it would also help if you provide> detailed comments in the code. Will do. But as I said, I just started coding it three days ago, soconsider the code in very bad shape right now. If I had decided topublish the code only later, for sure it would be better commented,but then I'd lose early comments as yours (which, specially for thelicense issue, is very important). BTW some comments are being purposedly ommited from the python codebecause it fits better as a description above the function definitionand not on the calls. E.g.: // Tokenize the input stream token = tokenize(filename, fd, NULL, includepath); But I'd like to first get more familiar with the sparse code and thenstart adding detailed comments to the function definitions. Thanks for the comments. Regards,-- Anderson Lizardo��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{������{ay� ʇڙ���f���h������_�(�階�ݢj"��������G����?���&��
