Hiya,
Steven Edwards wrote:
I would like to agree on language and put it to the standard 7 day vote. The emergency IRC meeting left some developers out due to time constraints. I think we all agree on the clean room, one reverses the other implements policy but I want to be sure we have the correct language in place.
After skyping with GreatLord (who still disagrees with the amendment as it is now) I would like to see "EITHER" clarified in the wording. You *either* supply documentation, *or* a test case. If you can't find documentation or a test case, you make said documentation or test case. In your current wording it could be misunderstood as "you need to supply documentation *and* a test case", which would simply be asking too much, at least imho. A lot of software use dirty tricks like direct binary addressing of private APIs (even for APIs that have perfectly functional public counterparts), for which finding test cases isn't realistic. Documenting all the addresses as obtained by disassembly and then having someone else implement it all, on the other hand, is realistic.
On another note, on #reactos-dev tamlin stated today:
17:37 <+tamlin> mf: I disagree that it is the problem. It is "only" one of many current problems as I see it. I also don't see it as all wrinkles as of yet having been ironed out. 18:47 <+tamlin> I came to think of something (I'm not suggesting this as workaround of anything, for anything): Does anyone really *know* what the legal status of "Trade Secret" (USA or other nations) is, if such information is publically available - whether the information, or even source code, has been acquired by legal or illegal means. 18:49 <+tamlin> I'm specifically thinking of Google, that I know at least in the past have made what's often referred to "proprietary, unpublished source code" available to anyone on the planet with a web browser and an internet connection.
Comments please.
mf