Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> | Modified: branches/wh-sandbox/src/etc/asq.c.pamphlet
> | ===================================================================
> | --- branches/wh-sandbox/src/etc/asq.c.pamphlet 2007-01-27 16:50:57 UTC
> (rev 425)
> | +++ branches/wh-sandbox/src/etc/asq.c.pamphlet 2007-02-01 05:09:31 UTC
> (rev 426)
> | @@ -2,1559 +2,929 @@
> | \usepackage{axiom}
> | \begin{document}
> | \title{\$SPAD/etc asq.c}
> | -\author{Timothy Daly}
> | +\author{Waldek Hebisch}
>
> I believe the conventional wisdom would suggest that you add your name
> as co-author as opposed to replacing the existing author, even if you
> have rewritten it. If this were a separate new program not building on
> previous ideas, I would that it is OK.
>
Hmm, I undersand that conventional wisdom is to err on side of giving
more credit for work than too little credit, but I find this suggestion
a little extreme.
Gaby, did you look at both programs: the new asq is a _new_ program.
Re-used from the old program is starting Latex boilerplate, Latex
footer and AXIOM variable (assignment and a test). On the level of
ideas of course I re-used the very idea of having such a program
and tried to make it compatible (in particular I re-used most of
the option names). Also the general approach (using linear search)
is common. But that is basically all.
About 70% of the new program is a start of generic S-expression handling
library which has no couterpart in the old program. The rest is also
very different (in particular much simpler) due to use of S-expressions
and table driven option handling.
I think it is proper to have acknowledgement line like:
This program replaces an older one written by Tim Daly.
(the exact wording may be different).
--
Waldek Hebisch
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
