From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Beverley Eyre Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.emacs.python-mode,gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta Subject: Re: replacing python.el Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:37:06 -0800 Message-ID: <49865C52.1060901@comcast.net> References: <4980316B.7080503@online.de> <49855643.4070803@comcast.net> <87vdrt6flh.fsf@liv.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030802050004020602050706" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1233542209 4794 80.91.229.12 (2 Feb 2009 02:36:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 02:36:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "skip@pobox.com" , "rms@gnu.org" , "python-mode@python.org" , "XEmacs-Beta@xemacs.org" , "barry@python.org" , "emacs-devel@gnu.org" To: Dave Love Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 02 03:38:02 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LTohF-0002eu-BT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 02 Feb 2009 03:38:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40346 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LTofw-0004QS-I9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:36:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LTofs-0004QN-Cs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:36:36 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LTofq-0004QB-P5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:36:35 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45215 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LTofq-0004Q8-JN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:36:34 -0500 Original-Received: from out-61.smtp.ucla.edu ([169.232.46.166]:38016) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LTofk-0007IW-8B; Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:36:28 -0500 Original-Received: from mail.ucla.edu (mail.ucla.edu [169.232.46.157]) by smtp-12.smtp.ucla.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n122a7bW016002; Sun, 1 Feb 2009 18:36:07 -0800 Original-Received: from [164.67.194.80] (femto.ee.ucla.edu [164.67.194.80]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.ucla.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n122a61v001995 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 1 Feb 2009 18:36:07 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20081204 Thunderbird/3.0b1 In-Reply-To: <87vdrt6flh.fsf@liv.ac.uk> X-Probable-Spam: no X-Spam-Hits: 1.211 X-Spam-Score: * X-Scanned-By: smtp.ucla.edu on 169.232.46.245 X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:108553 gmane.emacs.python-mode:232 gmane.emacs.xemacs.beta:29292 Archived-At: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030802050004020602050706 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dave et al, I'm not sure what you think "isn't true". I'll repeat that I don't blame you for using python-mode.el when you wrote python.el. My whole point was that you did. The following are some of the comments in your code that generated my remarks: (from python.el, GNU Emacs version 22.3.1) ------------------------------ (defvar python-mode-map (let ((map (make-sparse-keymap))) ;; Mostly taken from python-mode.el. ------------- ;; Fixme: Like python-mode.el; not convinced by this. --------- ;; indentable comment like python-mode.el --------- ;; Fixme: I'm not convinced by this logic from python-mode.el. --------- ;; The logic is taken from python-mode.el. --------------------------------- Plainly you did what those who were talking about 'merging' were going to do too. My 'job' (if you could call it that) was to compare how the two modes did things (i.e. their logic), and what things they chose to do (their features). The fact that you occasionally used the 'logic' from python-mode.el was something I was glad to see, as it made my job easier. Maybe you object to the word "peck", but you used code from python-mode, even if you altered it in the transition. It's unclear from your comments whether you copied the logic only or more, but that's not important (except maybe to lawyers). My whole point is that if you borrowed logic or code or ideas for features or whatever from python-mode.el for python.el, then it's a little hypocritical to try to legally prevent those trying to make a better, more useful, mode from potentially using some of your code in the same manner. Not that I feel like it anymore, to be honest. From my understanding, no one suggesting cutting and pasting your code. The discussion was about whether your logic was better or not, what features each had, and ultimately whether python.el had anything in it that was worth learning from when upgrading python-mode.el. This is where I'm coming from, Dave. The people who wrote python-mode.el start to plan an upgrade, and, noting that there is confusion, duplication of effort, and, needlessly, two python modes, wonder whether their might be some way to make a better mode using both. As anyone who looks at both modes at all can instantly see, cutting and pasting is not going to work. Any 'merging' will necessarily have to be done on the level of using the best algorithm for doing X, and incorporating the most useful features (as well as removing features that aren't so useful). Tell me this isn't what you did when you wrote python.el. Why did you choose to use the 'logic' from certain features in python-mode.el if you hadn't gone through it specifically for the purpose of seeing what you could use and what you couldn't? Plainly that was what was on your mind. LEGAL DISCLAIMER: Dave, I'm not accusing you of doing anything illegal, or even bad. I think what you did was good. I think others should be allowed to do the same thing. DEFINITION: "the same thing" By "the same thing" this author (to be henceforth designated as "this author") does not mean, imply, point to, or otherwise entail any action that can be classed as either legal or illegal (i.e. "follow a copyright law" or "break a copyright law"), but only means, implies, points to, and entails actions that can be classed as "programming" (i.e. writing symbols understood by computer compilers and/or interpreters for the purpose of causing, directing, or changing the behavior of computers). Oi vey. Bev On 02/01/2009 12:56 PM, Dave Love wrote: > Beverley Eyre writes: > > >> Don't forget that there was a peck of code that Dave Love took from >> python-mode.el in his python.el. >> > > That's not true, as I've already responded to Eyre with some subset of > these Ccs. As well as this claim of wholesale copying, and thus me > lying about the copyright status of the code, there was the implication > that I was violating other's copyright, and that people should ignore > the licence on free software (bizarrely on the basis of what rms > supposedly wrote). I advised legal advice on copyright, and should > probably have mentioned libel. > > [For the benefit of emacs-devel, this all originated when I complained > about someone distributing a chunk of my code with the FSF copyright > notice stripped as a patch for python-mode.el, which was under a simple > permissive licence. I also saw a call for volunteers to merge the two > modes, and pointed out the GPL'd code couldn't be used under the > permissive licence -- there was no mention of changing it -- and that > code couldn't be used in Emacs without a proper assignment.] > > Obviously if the FSF's legal advice on what's significant for copyright > purposes has changed, if I misinterpreted it, or made a mistake, I'd > re-write stuff appropriately. However, I don't think it's worth > worrying about it on the basis of someone who's so far quoted some > duplicated keybindings, and a Fixme comment that was clearly mine, as > evidence of all this copied code. If Emacs developers are worried, > please contact me more privately. > > --------------030802050004020602050706 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 
Dave et al,
 I'm not sure what you think "isn't true". I'll repeat that I don't blame you for using python-mode.el when you 
wrote python.el. My whole point was that you did. The following are some of the comments in your code that generated my 
remarks:

(from python.el, GNU Emacs version 22.3.1)
------------------------------
(defvar python-mode-map
(let ((map (make-sparse-keymap)))
;; Mostly taken from python-mode.el.
-------------
  ;; Fixme: Like python-mode.el; not convinced by this.
---------
  ;; indentable comment like python-mode.el
---------
  ;; Fixme: I'm not convinced by this logic from python-mode.el.
---------
  ;; The logic is taken from python-mode.el.
---------------------------------

Plainly you did what those who were talking about 'merging' were going to do too. My 'job' (if you could call it that) was to 
compare how the two modes did things (i.e. their logic), and what things they chose to do (their features). The fact that you occasionally used the 
'logic' from python-mode.el was something I was glad to see, as it made my job easier.

Maybe you object to the word "peck", but you used code from python-mode, even if you altered it in the transition. 
It's unclear from your comments whether you copied the logic only or more, but that's not important (except maybe to lawyers).

My whole point is that if you borrowed logic or code or ideas for features or whatever from python-mode.el for python.el, 
then it's a little hypocritical to try to legally prevent those trying to make a better, more useful, mode from potentially 
using some of your code in the same manner. Not that I feel like it anymore, to be honest. From my understanding, no one suggesting cutting
and pasting your code. The discussion was about whether your logic was better or not, what features each had, and ultimately whether python.el had 
anything in it that was worth learning from when upgrading python-mode.el.

This is where I'm coming from, Dave. The people who wrote python-mode.el start to plan an upgrade, and, noting that there is confusion, 
duplication of effort, and, needlessly, two python modes, wonder whether their might be some way to make a better mode using both. As anyone who
looks at both modes at all can instantly see, cutting and pasting is not going to work. Any 'merging' will necessarily have to be done on the 
level of using the best algorithm for doing X, and incorporating the most useful features (as well as removing features that aren't so useful).

Tell me this isn't what you did when you wrote python.el. Why did you choose to use the 'logic' from certain features in python-mode.el if you hadn't
gone through it specifically for the purpose of seeing what you could use and what you couldn't?  Plainly that was what was on your mind.


LEGAL DISCLAIMER:
Dave, I'm not accusing you of doing anything illegal, or even bad. I think what you did was good. 
I think others should be allowed to do the same thing.

DEFINITION: "the same thing"
	By "the same thing" this author (to be henceforth designated as "this author") does not mean, imply, point to, or otherwise entail any
	action that can be classed as either legal or illegal (i.e. "follow a copyright law" or "break a copyright law"), but only means, implies, 
	points to, and entails actions that can be classed as "programming" (i.e. writing symbols understood by computer compilers and/or 
	interpreters for the purpose of causing, directing, or changing the behavior of computers).


Oi vey.

Bev

On 02/01/2009 12:56 PM, Dave Love wrote:
Beverley Eyre <fbe2@comcast.net> writes:

  
Don't forget that there was a peck of code that Dave Love took from
python-mode.el in his python.el.
    

That's not true, as I've already responded to Eyre with some subset of
these Ccs.  As well as this claim of wholesale copying, and thus me
lying about the copyright status of the code, there was the implication
that I was violating other's copyright, and that people should ignore
the licence on free software (bizarrely on the basis of what rms
supposedly wrote).  I advised legal advice on copyright, and should
probably have mentioned libel.

[For the benefit of emacs-devel, this all originated when I complained
about someone distributing a chunk of my code with the FSF copyright
notice stripped as a patch for python-mode.el, which was under a simple
permissive licence.  I also saw a call for volunteers to merge the two
modes, and pointed out the GPL'd code couldn't be used under the
permissive licence -- there was no mention of changing it -- and that
code couldn't be used in Emacs without a proper assignment.]

Obviously if the FSF's legal advice on what's significant for copyright
purposes has changed, if I misinterpreted it, or made a mistake, I'd
re-write stuff appropriately.  However, I don't think it's worth
worrying about it on the basis of someone who's so far quoted some
duplicated keybindings, and a Fixme comment that was clearly mine, as
evidence of all this copied code.  If Emacs developers are worried,
please contact me more privately.

--------------030802050004020602050706--