Summary: PD Source Code Etiquette (Long)

[Gil Kloepfer Jr.]

In a posting of a couple of weeks ago, I wrote:

] Further, the organization which someone represents should always remain
] attached to the person's name since, in many cases, the organization
] helped by providing the resources which made the program possible.  Again,
] recognition should go to the author and his organization when a majority
] of a program is used for a particular purpose.
] 
] I would appreciate some input on how future public domain software posted
] to the net should be maintained (especially as to "ownership" of code,
] what is proper as far as changing headings (,etc), who should handle
] maintenance of the code, and so on).  Please send mail to me directly and
] I will post a followup article in about 2 weeks summarizing the responses.

Before I summarize, I would like to add a few comments.  First, the quantity
of replies I got were minimal.  I am not sure whether this is because the
net community is disinterested, or just because they don't care.  Either way,
I don't want to know now, so save us all having to use our kill files and me
the "d" key by not mailing/posting any flames/comments from this point on.

Frankly, I'm surprised.  An overwhelming majority of readers lost the point.
I'll spare the net a dozen flames and endless arguments over who wrote
phdaemon and how it evolved.  My chief gripe is that WHEN SOMEONE POSTS A
SOURCE CODE OF ANY KIND, THE PERSON(S) INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT SHOULD BE
**PROPERLY** CREDITED, and when source code is "lifted" and _modified_
somewhat, THE ORIGINAL HEADING (if any) SHOULD BE LEFT IN-TACT SO THAT
THIS CREDIT IS MAINTAINED!  This is my opinion, and the opinion of many
other professionals like myself.

As promised, here is a summary of the responses I got:

#From: ...!pb2esac!pttesac!robert
] I'm all for the concept of public domain software maintenance, but in
] defense of Lee Hounshell, I'd like to bring up a small point.
] 
] In the original flame of Lee by I forget whom, stated:
] 
] >[Lee] did a complete re-write and changed the coding sytle of
] >the program, although I don't know why!
] 
] I know why!  Seventy five percent of the code that comes over
] the public domain is almost un-readable.  Isn't cb(1) available
] on all UNIX(tm) releases ?  I know less than half of the people
] who get PD software hack on the code, but it's not easy to look
] at some of the stuff that I receive.  Don't get me wrong, I app-
] reciate PD software, and I actually sometimes enjoy changing code
] to my style preference before I store it, but I'm only trying to
] answer the flamer as to why Lee changed the coding sytle.

[Lengthy example of "bad coding style" deleted]

] I prefer the latter.  Again, I'd like to say that I'm not saying
] everyone should either conform to the rules or die, I'm just
] saying that Lee probably re-wrote some of the code to make it
] more readable.
] These opinions are my own and are not those of Pacific Bell.
] (Although my boss would be pissed if I wrote code like the first example)
] Robert Rodriguez
] ESAC, Pacific [*] Bell
] pacbell!pttesac!robert
] (213) 604-5175
] 

Editor's note:  The above reply about coding style has NOTHING to do with my
posting, and further, does not even apply to the phdaemon incident...  If
you have questions, see Lenny's version of phdaemon...

#From: pjc at pcbox.UUCP (Paul J. Condie)
Organization: Yet Another Box - Casto Valley, Ca.

] 	Since I was the original author of the infamous "phdaemon" program I 
] might as well throw my nickel in the pot.
] 	When I posted phdaemon to the net I stated that it was public
] domain software.  Lenny sent me mail saying he had some ideas on making it
] better and if it would be all right for him to do so and post to the net.  I
] told him that's great.  If he can improve on it, then it makes it better for
] all of us.  I think that is the general idea behind public doman software,
] one person improving upon the work done by someone else.  Of course, that
] usually means that public domain software is hard to maintain or even have only
] one version of the program out there, but that is the nature of the beast.
] 	Any rules that you come up with concerning how future public domain
] software is posted to the net is un-enforceable, therefore worthless.  I don't
] even like the idea of trying to put rules on public domain software.  And
] as to ownership of code, if anyone can claim ownership to phdaemon, it's me!
] And has I stated when I first posted it, this code and the ideas behind it are
] "pubic" domain.  If you can improve it, so much the better.
] 	I haven't really seen what Lenny did with phdaemon, I'm still 
] running my original version.  I understand some nice features were added, 
] way to go Lenny.  And if Lee improved on Lennys, then I say, that a boy.  And
] if Gil can improve the maintainability of it all, oooooook.  Just don't make
] too many rules.

Editor's note:  Yes, Paul.  And Lenny DID properly credit you for your ideas
behind phdaemon, and the original code.

#From hombre!uunet!uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu!lee
[All quoted text deleted for space considerations]
] 
] Yes, the header should have remained intact.
]  
] No.  I don't think there is any obligation to work through the original
] author.  Mr. Tropiano reads the net.  If he wants to merge the code
] and release a new version, there's nothing to prevent him doing so.
] Readers of the net can choose which version to run.
] 
] There are enough rules and rule-makers around already.
] 
] Greg, lee at uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu

#From sbcs!sunybcs!rutgers!mips.mips.com!wilkes
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, CA
] I agree with your comments.  In addition, I would suggest that if a program
] is entirely re-written but was inspired by something that was posted,
] credit should be given for the inspiration.  I have seen this in many
] postings.  Anyone who removes revision history headers from posted source
] is worse than pond scum.  Anyone who claims another's work, including the
] work of conception, as their own is a liar and a scoundrel.
] 
] -wilkes 
] -- 
] -- work: {decwrl ames pyramid prls}!mips!wilkes  -OR-  wilkes at mips.com

Thanks to all who responded.

+------------------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Gil Kloepfer, Jr.                  | Net-Address:                           |
| ICUS Software Systems              | {boulder,talcott}!icus!limbic!gil      |
| P.O. Box 1                         | Voice-net: (516) 968-6860              |
| Islip Terrace, New York  11752     | Othernet: gil at limbic.UUCP              |
+------------------------------------+----------------------------------------+