Re: Model Code for the OSD
We are assuming that there has not been complete past compliance with some of the guidelines in the OSD; hence, this process is meant to make compliance easier by clarifying and updating the OSD. IMHO, I think we all know well-documented source code when we see it. Rod - Original Message - From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Rod Dixon' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 10:08 PM Subject: Re: Model Code for the OSD : On Saturday 18 January 2003 09:39 am, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: : I would prefer requiring all available documentation describing how to : modify the original work. That means that a developer cannot hide : documentation that IS available simply to make others' work more : difficult. /Larry : : I'm not even sure that deliberately obfuscated source code even extends to : the documentation. Removing documentation may be necessary to obfuscate : source code, but removing it is rarely sufficient. : : The only type of documentation that is included in source code is comments. : Since the quality of comments in OSS projects ranges from the superb to the : dismal, defining obfuscation in terms of code comments is problematic. To : take one example, why should my modification of apache keep comments in : place, when libsrvg has virtually none to begin with? : : Every section in the OSD specifically refers to the license or the rights : attached to the program, except for section two. It needs to be read : differently. : : My opinion is that deliberately obfuscated source code should be decoupled : from documentation. The quality and state of documentation is very : subjective, and should not be a part of the OSD. : : -- : David Johnson : ___ : http://www.usermode.org : pgp public key on website : -- : license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Model Code for the OSD
IMHO, I think we all know well-documented source code when we see it. Excuse me, but is the OSD being written for the esteemed and talented frequent posters to this list or as a guideline for a wider audience ? Cheers. dj -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Model Code for the OSD
David Johnson scripsit: My opinion is that deliberately obfuscated source code should be decoupled from documentation. The quality and state of documentation is very subjective, and should not be a part of the OSD. IMHO that was meant to exclude people from publishing their source code after it had been fed through an obfuscator, which not only strips comments, but changes identifiers from meaningful names to barely distinguishable strings of gibberish. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,http://www.ccil.org/~cowan han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Model Code for the OSD
My opinion is that deliberately obfuscated source code should be decoupled from documentation. The quality and state of documentation is very subjective, and should not be a part of the OSD. IMHO that was meant to exclude people from publishing their source code after it had been fed through an obfuscator, which not only strips comments, but changes identifiers from meaningful names to barely distinguishable strings of gibberish. Precisely! You are not required to create high-quality documentation, but if you do you should make it available along with the source code in the preferred form ... for making modifications. (OSL ยง3.) I heard a story about one company (Tivo was the company identified, but I can't vouch for the accuracy of the report) that is deliberately keeping its published documentation to a minimum in their Linux contributions because they want to retain a proprietary competitive advantage. I think that's not playing fair. It seems to me that's honoring the letter, but not the spirit, of the GPL. /Larry Rosen -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Model Code for the OSD
David Johnson wrote: My opinion is that deliberately obfuscated source code should be decoupled from documentation. The quality and state of documentation is very subjective, and should not be a part of the OSD. I have to agree with David. The documentation quality of the source code is orthogonal to the availability of source code, and thus has nothing to do with the OSD. Trying to establish what documentation quality is, is difficult in the first place. Firstly, people differ in intelligence and experience, so what is obfuscated to one person, may be obvious to another. Secondly, should the quality be judge on the choice of human language? For example, if a russian developer releases source code with comments in Russian, can I claim that he is deliberately obfuscating the source code? Can the russian developer claim that all source code with English comments are obfuscated to him? Thirdly, the source code may implement algorithms or domain knowledge that is inherently difficult to understand, and which would require a book-sized explanation. Would it be considered compliant with the OSD to refer to a (commercially available) book? If not, how does the developer avoid infringing the copyright of the book author while adhering to the suggested OSD documentation requirements? I am sure that there are other concerns as well; the above was simply off the top of my head. I understand the good intentions behind the proposal, but I definitely see it as a slippery slope. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Model Code for the OSD
David has proposed that Article 2 of the OSD not be read to require documented source code. To implement this change on our draft, I can delete from section 2-2 of the model code the explanatory passage that defines obfuscated to mean, among other things, undocumented code. I'll make this change by the end of the month unless others post views to the contrary. Rod - Original Message - From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rod Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 9:55 PM Subject: Re: Model Code for the OSD : On Friday 17 January 2003 09:57 am, Rod Dixon wrote: : Larry List members: at your convenience, please download the current : draft of the OSD's proposed model code. : : I have one nit. : : 4: Source code that is exceptionally difficult to read either because it is : not documented or is cryptically expressed is considered obfuscated source : code... : : This seems onerous. It is the bad habit of many developers not to document : their code. If the code itself is easily understandable by someone conversant : with the language and the problem domain, then the lack of documentation : should not count as obfuscation. I don't want to point any fingers, but there : are numerous examples of OSS projects with absolutely no documentation. : : -- : David Johnson : ___ : http://www.usermode.org : pgp public key on website : -- : license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
RE: Model Code for the OSD
I would prefer requiring all available documentation describing how to modify the original work. That means that a developer cannot hide documentation that IS available simply to make others' work more difficult. /Larry -Original Message- From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 8:41 AM To: David Johnson; Rod Dixon Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Model Code for the OSD David has proposed that Article 2 of the OSD not be read to require documented source code. To implement this change on our draft, I can delete from section 2-2 of the model code the explanatory passage that defines obfuscated to mean, among other things, undocumented code. I'll make this change by the end of the month unless others post views to the contrary. Rod - Original Message - From: David Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rod Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 9:55 PM Subject: Re: Model Code for the OSD : On Friday 17 January 2003 09:57 am, Rod Dixon wrote: : Larry List members: at your convenience, please download the current : draft of the OSD's proposed model code. : : I have one nit. : : 4: Source code that is exceptionally difficult to read either because it is : not documented or is cryptically expressed is considered obfuscated source : code... : : This seems onerous. It is the bad habit of many developers not to document : their code. If the code itself is easily understandable by someone conversant : with the language and the problem domain, then the lack of documentation : should not count as obfuscation. I don't want to point any fingers, but there : are numerous examples of OSS projects with absolutely no documentation. : : -- : David Johnson : ___ : http://www.usermode.org : pgp public key on website : -- : license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Model Code for the OSD
On Saturday 18 January 2003 09:39 am, Lawrence E. Rosen wrote: I would prefer requiring all available documentation describing how to modify the original work. That means that a developer cannot hide documentation that IS available simply to make others' work more difficult. /Larry I'm not even sure that deliberately obfuscated source code even extends to the documentation. Removing documentation may be necessary to obfuscate source code, but removing it is rarely sufficient. The only type of documentation that is included in source code is comments. Since the quality of comments in OSS projects ranges from the superb to the dismal, defining obfuscation in terms of code comments is problematic. To take one example, why should my modification of apache keep comments in place, when libsrvg has virtually none to begin with? Every section in the OSD specifically refers to the license or the rights attached to the program, except for section two. It needs to be read differently. My opinion is that deliberately obfuscated source code should be decoupled from documentation. The quality and state of documentation is very subjective, and should not be a part of the OSD. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
Re: Model Code for the OSD
On Friday 17 January 2003 09:57 am, Rod Dixon wrote: Larry List members: at your convenience, please download the current draft of the OSD's proposed model code. I have one nit. 4: Source code that is exceptionally difficult to read either because it is not documented or is cryptically expressed is considered obfuscated source code... This seems onerous. It is the bad habit of many developers not to document their code. If the code itself is easily understandable by someone conversant with the language and the problem domain, then the lack of documentation should not count as obfuscation. I don't want to point any fingers, but there are numerous examples of OSS projects with absolutely no documentation. -- David Johnson ___ http://www.usermode.org pgp public key on website -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
