[squeak-dev] [ANN] Kernel methods license audit

>
>  > - one will look at old and current implementation and will describe
>  > how must be the original source changed to do the same job as the
>  > current version. This description should be as general as possible -
>  > no code. For example "use ZeroDivide instead of general error",
>  > "LdInstLong was renamed to LoadLong" etc. Some descriptions are
>  > present in the old version of license audit
>  > (http://comtalk.eu/public/pub/KernelImage/license/license2.ods)
>
>  This is great work.  But, how is an accessor copyrightable?  In your pdf
>  I see methods like
>
>  sourceForm
>      ^sourceForm
>
>  paleBlue
>      ^PaleBlue
>
>  e
>      ^E
>
>  isFloat
>      ^true
>
>  one
>      "A comment that is probably obsolete by now."
>      ^1.0
>
>  These are clearly not possible to write differently; and it would be as
>  worse to rewrite the same code "stealing" attribution from the original
>  author, as it is to change the distribution license under the feet of
>  someone who hasn't assigned copyright papers.  It is clearly a stalemate
>  here unfortunately and it has to be sorted out asap.

> > he wrote the new code that probably has the same content as the
>  > original one.  [...]
>
>  >
>  > we simply have to trust people that they will not cheat. And they should
>  > be ready to sign it.
>
>  Of course.  But the bigger problem is the first.
>
>  In the case of accessors, for example, the original contributor could
>  have contributed a single change to add those accessors, or these
>  methods could be part of a bigger change.  The first case probably is
>  not even copyrightable; in the second the overall changeset is
>  copyrightable, and I wonder if a judge would be convinced  if they were
>  shown the exact same source code up to the MD5 checksum.
>
>  After all saying "a method that returns instance variable foo" is not
>  different from saying "a method that does ^foo".  It is not talking
>  about an idea, the idea *is* the implementation (all this of course
>  holds because the "first team" does see the source code, it does not
>  apply if there was English documentation that the "second team" could
>  directly look at).
>
>  In both cases, it looks like chasing windmills; you should get clear
>  advice if it isn't better to just leave these simple methods aside, with
>  attribution to the original author.
>
>  Paolo
>

> Hi all,
>
> I've prepared current license audit of kernel methods, see:
>
> http://comtalk.eu/public/pub/KernelImage/license/licenseAudit1.csv
> http://comtalk.eu/public/pub/KernelImage/license/licenseAudit2.ods
> - overview of SqueakL methods in the kernel.image (OpenOffice format)
> http://comtalk.eu/public/pub/KernelImage/license/licenseAudit2.pdf
> - overview of SqueakL methods in the kernel.image (PDF format)
>
> For more information see Wiki page on the KernelImage SqueakSource  
> repository:
> http://www.squeaksource.com/KernelImage.html
>
> We need to rewrite 332 methods.
> There are some methods that have similar source to Squeak 1.1 version.
> The first task is to convert them. For this task wee need two people
> (or two teams):
>
> - one will look at old and current implementation and will describe
> how must be the original source changed to do the same job as the
> current version. This description should be as general as possible -
> no code. For example "use ZeroDivide instead of general error",
> "LdInstLong was renamed to LoadLong" etc. Some descriptions are
> present in the old version of license audit
> (http://comtalk.eu/public/pub/KernelImage/license/license2.ods)
>
> - the second person/team must not see the current code! It will take
> the code from Squeak 1.1, will create new method and modify it as
> described by the first person. We already tested this process with
> Damien.
>
> So, volunteers?
>
> Cheers,
> -- Pavel
>
>

> pavel
>
>  from which image are you computing such information?
>
>  Stef
>
>
> On Mar 20, 2008, at 5:05 PM, Pavel Krivanek wrote:
>
>  > Hi all,
>  >
>  > I've prepared current license audit of kernel methods, see:
>  >
>  > http://comtalk.eu/public/pub/KernelImage/license/licenseAudit1.csv
>  > http://comtalk.eu/public/pub/KernelImage/license/licenseAudit2.ods
>  > - overview of SqueakL methods in the kernel.image (OpenOffice format)
>  > http://comtalk.eu/public/pub/KernelImage/license/licenseAudit2.pdf
>  > - overview of SqueakL methods in the kernel.image (PDF format)
>  >
>  > For more information see Wiki page on the KernelImage SqueakSource
>  > repository:
>  > http://www.squeaksource.com/KernelImage.html
>  >
>  > We need to rewrite 332 methods.
>  > There are some methods that have similar source to Squeak 1.1 version.
>  > The first task is to convert them. For this task wee need two people
>  > (or two teams):
>  >
>  > - one will look at old and current implementation and will describe
>  > how must be the original source changed to do the same job as the
>  > current version. This description should be as general as possible -
>  > no code. For example "use ZeroDivide instead of general error",
>  > "LdInstLong was renamed to LoadLong" etc. Some descriptions are
>  > present in the old version of license audit
>  > (http://comtalk.eu/public/pub/KernelImage/license/license2.ods)
>  >
>  > - the second person/team must not see the current code! It will take
>  > the code from Squeak 1.1, will create new method and modify it as
>  > described by the first person. We already tested this process with
>  > Damien.
>  >
>  > So, volunteers?
>  >
>  > Cheers,
>  > -- Pavel
>  >
>  >
>
>
>

> Hi all,
>
> I've prepared current license audit of kernel methods, see:
>
> http://comtalk.eu/public/pub/KernelImage/license/licenseAudit1.csv
> http://comtalk.eu/public/pub/KernelImage/license/licenseAudit2.ods
> - overview of SqueakL methods in the kernel.image (OpenOffice format)
> http://comtalk.eu/public/pub/KernelImage/license/licenseAudit2.pdf
> - overview of SqueakL methods in the kernel.image (PDF format)
>
> For more information see Wiki page on the KernelImage SqueakSource repository:
> http://www.squeaksource.com/KernelImage.html
>
> We need to rewrite 332 methods.
> There are some methods that have similar source to Squeak 1.1 version.
> The first task is to convert them. For this task wee need two people
> (or two teams):
>
> - one will look at old and current implementation and will describe
> how must be the original source changed to do the same job as the
> current version. This description should be as general as possible -
> no code. For example "use ZeroDivide instead of general error",
> "LdInstLong was renamed to LoadLong" etc. Some descriptions are
> present in the old version of license audit
> (http://comtalk.eu/public/pub/KernelImage/license/license2.ods)
>
> - the second person/team must not see the current code! It will take
> the code from Squeak 1.1, will create new method and modify it as
> described by the first person. We already tested this process with
> Damien.
>
> So, volunteers?
>
> Cheers,
> -- Pavel
>
>

>
> However, looking at the source, apart accessors, some methods will
> hardly ever change, like:
> Integer>>bitInvert
>     ^-1-self
>
> There is no added value in such method but very obvious algorithm:
> two complement: bitinvert the digits, and add 1
> => bitInvert: take two complement, and subtract 1
>
> The trick is not here, it is in pretending LargeNegativeInteger are
> stored in two complements, what they are not...
> So the trick is in all the bitOr:, bitAnd:, bitXor:, bitShift:
> implementations, as a whole.
>

>
>> However, looking at the source, apart accessors, some methods will
>> hardly ever change, like:
>> Integer>>bitInvert
>>     ^-1-self
>>
>> There is no added value in such method but very obvious algorithm:
>> two complement: bitinvert the digits, and add 1
>> => bitInvert: take two complement, and subtract 1
>

>> The trick is not here, it is in pretending LargeNegativeInteger are
>> stored in two complements, what they are not...
>> So the trick is in all the bitOr:, bitAnd:, bitXor:, bitShift:
>> implementations, as a whole.
>
> If you want a >0% chance to have different code, look at libgst/mpz.c
> from GNU Smalltalk.  It contains the exact same algorithms written in C
> (so don't be afraid of tainting anything with anything).  And XOR does
> not use NOT so you get a chance to rewrite #bitInvert too.  :-)
>
> Paolo
>
>