Antonio, I won't get involved in the rest of the discussion (I do have many opinions), but I'll address the vocabulary issue. The word Andrew is looking for is actually "flout", not "flaunt". This is a common substitution many English speakers, even native speakers, would make. It means "to show contempt for", especially in relation to rules or laws.
Alexander On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 11:48 AM Antonio Diaz Diaz <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >
