From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Tests and copyright Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:50:21 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87fvudqsld.fsf@engster.org> <877gfoq7ou.fsf@engster.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1376531443 19907 80.91.229.3 (15 Aug 2013 01:50:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 01:50:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs-Devel devel To: PJ Weisberg Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 15 03:50:45 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1V9mi2-0001QI-Gb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:50:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50873 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V9mi2-0002Lv-3M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:50:42 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56574) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V9mhr-0002Ll-7R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:50:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V9mhj-00077V-Sb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:50:31 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.182]:40055) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1V9mhj-00077L-Ng for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:50:23 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EABK/CFFLd/Nq/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kiB4GwS2RCgOkeoFegxM X-IPAS-Result: Av4EABK/CFFLd/Nq/2dsb2JhbABEvw4Xc4IeAQEEAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kiB4GwS2RCgOkeoFegxM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,565,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="21902883" Original-Received: from 75-119-243-106.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([75.119.243.106]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 14 Aug 2013 21:50:15 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id DEAE0633F4; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 21:50:21 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <877gfoq7ou.fsf@engster.org> (David Engster's message of "Wed, 14 Aug 2013 23:33:05 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.182 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:162746 Archived-At: >>> I'm currently migrating our EIEIO test suite to Emacs, and I'm wondering >>> if files in the tests/ directory fall under the same rules w.r.t. to >>> copyright/papers? >> I don't see why they wouldn't,=A0 if they're distributed.=A0 They're just >> as much the original work of an author. > AFAIK, they are not distributed with the tarballs. Also, at least I do > not consider them part of "the Emacs source code", but I'm not a lawyer. Actually, this question has popped up in the past, and until now we haven't had any reason to find a good answer, so we haven't dug any deeper. There are sound reasons to consider that the test suite could follow different guidelines in this respect: - in case of a legal challenge, we could drop the relevant tests without suffering any direct consequence. - test cases may come simply from bug-reports from many people who aren't likely to contribute any further. My opinion is that it is not necessary to get copyright assignments for the test cases themselves (e.g. the files in emacs/test/indent, or the compile-tests--test-regexps-data var in test/automated/compile-tests.el). That still leaves open the question for the code written to actually run the tests (e.g. the functions compile--test-error-line and compile-test-error-regexps in that same test/automated/compile-tests.el). To the extent that this code is likely to have parts that can be reused between different sets of tests for different packages, I tend to think that it falls in the camp of "it's just code like any other". > Anyway, I was just hoping that I wouldn't have to wade through years of > log history, as if porting test code wasn't boring enough already. Is the above rule "lax enough" to significantly lighten your workload? Stefan