Andrew,
Andrew L. Moore wrote:
I resent the insinuation that I plagarized POSIX. I did not.
I did not insinuate such a thing. As a non-native English writer I'm unable
to be so subtle. If, IMHO, the current GNU ed manual does not plagiarize
POSIX, how may I think that your 1994 manual does it?
Run the same DeepSeek-V4-Flash prompt against my ed.info and it concludes:
[The] overlap is real, but it is overlap at the level of facts, ideas,
methods, and the command language itself -- not copyrightable
expression.
Do you mean that you compared your GNU ed manual from 1994 with current
POSIX and DeepSeek found less similarities? Isn't that expected?
You have shown disrespect for historical precedent,
Not recently, IIRC.
ignorance of Unix standards,
What Unix standards? Are they relevant to current ed?
general incompetence as maintainer of GNU ed,
:-D
and now you flaunt Copyright law.
After consulting 2 dictionaries and an automated translator, I still don't
understand what does this sentence mean. (They offered contradictory
meanings for flaunt).
I have read your "full AI session" and I think there is no Copyright
violation here.
According to your "AI session" the overlap between GNU ed.info and the POSIX
ed specification concentrates in the descriptions of the commands and one
paragraph of the "Line addressing" chapter. No significant overlap has been
found in the non-functional parts of the manual.
Let's see an example of the overlap we are talking about. Your "AI
session"'s first argument against the presence of copyright infringement is:
"The underlying content - what each ed command does - is functional,
unprotectable subject matter. Copyright protects expression, not the
described behavior or algorithm."
This is the first sample of overlap found by your "AI session":
POSIX:
the current line number shall become the address of the last inserted line
or, if there were none, the addressed line.
Current ed.info:
The current address is set to the address of the last line entered or, if
there were none, to the addressed line.
1994 ed.info:
The current address is set to last line entered.
As you can see, your description is less similar to POSIX because it is
incomplete. I had to add the part about what happens when no lines are
entered. What I find relevant here is that I don't know hot to describe the
required behavior with words significantly different from those used by POSIX.
The mechanics are like this:
1) POSIX says "ed shall do this".
2) I implement (or check) in ed the behavior required by POSIX.
3) I document that "ed does this".
Maybe you, as native English speaker, can find wordings different from those
used by POSIX but conveying the same meaning as those used by POSIX. In this
case, if you think the similarities are a problem, the right thing to do is
to contribute such alternative wordings through bug-ed.
Of course, I'm willing to apply any measure that anybody relevant to this
issue considers necessary or convenient.
Best regards,
Antonio.
