Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: [Axiom-commit] SF.net SVN: axiom: [426] branches/wh-sandbox

[Waldek Hebisch]

> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> 
> | > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> | >
> | > | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | > | > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 address@hidden wrote:
> | > | >
> | > | > [...]
> | > | >
> | > | > | Modified: branches/wh-sandbox/src/etc/asq.c.pamphlet
> | > | > | ===================================================================
> | > | > | --- branches/wh-sandbox/src/etc/asq.c.pamphlet      2007-01-27 
> 16:50:57 UTC (rev 425)
> | > | > | +++ branches/wh-sandbox/src/etc/asq.c.pamphlet      2007-02-01 
> 05:09:31 UTC (rev 426)
> | > | > | @@ -2,1559 +2,929 @@
> | > | > |  \usepackage{axiom}
> | > | > |  \begin{document}
> | > | > |  \title{\$SPAD/etc asq.c}
> | > | > | -\author{Timothy Daly}
> | > | > | +\author{Waldek Hebisch}
> | > | >
> | > | > I believe the conventional wisdom would suggest that you add your name
> | > | > as co-author as opposed to replacing the existing author, even if you
> | > | > have rewritten it. If this were a separate new program not building on
> | > | > previous ideas, I would that it is OK.
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > | Hmm, I undersand that conventional wisdom is to err on side of giving
> | > | more credit for work than too little credit, but I find this suggestion
> | > | a little extreme.
> | >
> | > I'm not so sure.
> | >
> | > | Gaby, did you look at both programs: the new asq is a _new_ program.
> | >
> | > I read over your new "asq" and the old asq and followed your
> | > explanation, *before* I sent my mail.
> | >
> | > My opinion is that your name should be added co-author, not replace
> | > the original author.  Or, call the program something else and

                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> | > acknowledge that this new program greatly benefited from the existing
> | > one, in particular from its documentation and its errors. But having
> | > two proram doing almost the same thing will be very confusing.  So, I
> | > believe the conventional wisdom is good here.
> | >
> |
> | I fail to see how filename affects authorship status of a file.
> 
> Me enither.  Why do you think it has anything to do with this?
> 

How should I read what you wrote above? (I the place marked by ^ signs).

> [...]
> 
> | Note that I do not claim any credit for the old asq program.
> 
> Yes, and listing only your name as author implies claiming credits.
> 

I do claim credit for the new file.

> Put blunt, I think you did a grave act of violence by replacing
> the existing asq.c with the new one witout explicit acknowlegement as
> co-author (which I believe is the correct thing), and  acknowledgment
> section that traces the history of asq.c.
>

I am shocked by your words.  For me "author" has clear meaning: 
somebody who wrote the work or nontrivial part of it or at least had
significant influence on the shape of the work.  I somebody replaced
something that I wrote by new thing but kept my name as an author
I would probably ask to romove my name -- taking credit for something
taht I did not would only devaluate credits due for things that I
really did.  However, if Tim Daly feels as a coauthor of new asq
I will add his name.  But I will not do this without his explicit
permission.

Concerning acknowledgment: I did a mistake here -- I was concetrating
on technical details and forgot about it.  I would like to correct
this problem but opinions I hear from you (Gaby) and Ralph are
widely different.
 
> | I see
> | Richard Stallman mentioned as a coauthor of cpp.texi, but comparing
> | cpp.texinfo from gcc-1.35 with cpp.texi from gcc-4.1.1 I can find
> | a few passages are taken almost verbatim from the old version.
> | I would guess that careful examination would show more connections.
> | So I consider it reasonable to state that Stallman is a coauthor
> | (assuming he did wrote version contained in gcc-1.35).
> |
> | Concering programs: I did not look at preprocessor files.  But I did
> | found surprising similarities between some parts of gcc-1.35 and
> | parts of gcc-4.1.1 -- after many edits code looks very different,
> | but clearly is still the same code.
> 
> It would be very interesting to see which portions of which files you
> look at.
> 

IIRC this was in the C front end.  But I am not sure if disscusing
gcc authorship is relevant here (what you wrote above only strengthened
my impression that gcc is not a good model to follow).

The point I wanted to make is: even if evolved text/code looks quite
different from the original its form is usually significantly
influenced by original author (and in many cases this influence
can be seen).  I feel that "start from scratch" rewrite is quite
different.

-- 
                              Waldek Hebisch
address@hidden