Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: [Axiom-commit] SF.net SVN: axiom: [426] branches/wh-sandbox

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Waldek Hebisch wrote:

| > | > | Gaby, did you look at both programs: the new asq is a _new_ program.
| > | >
| > | > I read over your new "asq" and the old asq and followed your
| > | > explanation, *before* I sent my mail.
| > | >
| > | > My opinion is that your name should be added co-author, not replace
| > | > the original author.  Or, call the program something else and
|
|                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
| > | > acknowledge that this new program greatly benefited from the existing
| > | > one, in particular from its documentation and its errors. But having
| > | > two proram doing almost the same thing will be very confusing.  So, I
| > | > believe the conventional wisdom is good here.
| > | >
| > |
| > | I fail to see how filename affects authorship status of a file.
| >
| > Me enither.  Why do you think it has anything to do with this?
| >
|
| How should I read what you wrote above? (I the place marked by ^ signs).

Well, calling a program something else is not a matter of file-name.
You could very well put your codes in the *same* file asq.c, while
retaining the previous.   But, that is not what is not.  You have
*replaced* the existing one.

[...]

| I am shocked by your words.  For me "author" has clear meaning:
| somebody who wrote the work or nontrivial part of it or at least had
| significant influence on the shape of the work.  I somebody replaced
| something that I wrote by new thing but kept my name as an author
| I would probably ask to romove my name

yes, but I had not seen you putting Tim's name as co-author and he
asking for taking his name out.  And in this case, I do believe that
Tim's initial effort and continued documentation (even not perfet,
e.g. duplication) does contribute  substantially to the new code.

I just think we should not refrain for giving enough credits if we
ever want the place to be collegial and attracts more people.
This is my last word on this; I've said where I stand.

[...]

| > | I see
| > | Richard Stallman mentioned as a coauthor of cpp.texi, but comparing
| > | cpp.texinfo from gcc-1.35 with cpp.texi from gcc-4.1.1 I can find
| > | a few passages are taken almost verbatim from the old version.
| > | I would guess that careful examination would show more connections.
| > | So I consider it reasonable to state that Stallman is a coauthor
| > | (assuming he did wrote version contained in gcc-1.35).
| > |
| > | Concering programs: I did not look at preprocessor files.  But I did
| > | found surprising similarities between some parts of gcc-1.35 and
| > | parts of gcc-4.1.1 -- after many edits code looks very different,
| > | but clearly is still the same code.
| >
| > It would be very interesting to see which portions of which files you
| > look at.
| >
|
| IIRC this was in the C front end.

As I said, the C preproprocessor is a different component now,
separate from the C-family front-ends, with the integration done with
the parser -- instead of through temporary files as in the past.
Look at libcpp/.

| But I am not sure if disscusing
| gcc authorship is relevant here (what you wrote above only strengthened
| my impression that gcc is not a good model to follow).

I'm not sure.  People contributing new components get their names in.
Others, such as Richard Henderson, are so universally recognized that
they don't think they need to put down their names :-)

-- Gaby