3 ms·

> The TH3 test harness is a set of proprietary tests, [...] TH3 is free to SQLite Consortium members and is available by license to others. I think it's ridicu

by cyphar 10y ago

> The TH3 test harness is a set of proprietary tests, [...] TH3 is free to SQLite Consortium members and is available by license to others. I think it's ridiculous that people make proprietary test suites. In my opinion, test suites shouldn't even be copyrightable let alone made proprietary. A test suite is used to define what the precise interface of an API is, it's just a piece of code rather than a standards document. EDIT: To be clear, the actual test framework might be copyrightable. But the actual test cases should not be IMO. It's also a shame that a free software project requires using proprietary software in order to practically test it.

Tomte 10y ago
If your API is defined by a test suite you're doing something very, very wrong. Additionally, there are three major test suites for SQLite, and two of them (with a test coverage that still leaves most other open source projects in the dust) are open source and free. I can live with paying members getting additional testing possibilities.
- mlvljr 10y ago
  Question is, what defines the SQLITE API (if not elaborate tests)? The documentations is a bit scarce, that is :)
dalke 10y ago
Facts aren't copywriteable, and in the US a collection of facts is also not copyrwriteable. A test case is structured around an assertion of facts. To that extent, it is not copywriteable. But other parts of a test case, which have creative thought, are copywriteable. This can include the test name and any comments. If you manage to get ahold of the test suite, strip out all of the assertions, and create a new test system which does the same tests, then you might get a lawyer to agree that it's not copyright infringement. Even then, a test case might use something which is under copyright. For example, it may contain a poem, and check if the length of the poem is as expected. That said, if there were no copyright (let's say it's the 1960s, before copyright was extended to software), it could still be covered as a trade secret, and protected under confidentiality agreements. That is, copyright affects what you can do once you get the software, but you might not be able to get it in the first place. Therefore, while I understand and even empathize with your argument, I don't think you should based the argument in copywriteability. Instead, I think you should look to Stallman's argument for why documentation for a free software project should itself be free. If you modify the code, you should be able to modify the documentation instead of starting from scratch. https://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/manual/html_node/Free-Software-Needs-Free-Documentation.html https://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/manual/html_node/Free-Softw... By analogy, if you modify the code, you should be modify the test suite instead of starting from scratch. One obvious solution is to start your own GNU-licensed SQLite test suite, to, ahem, fight against the software hoarders. ;)

by cyphar 10y ago

Tomte 10y ago

If your API is defined by a test suite you're doing something very, very wrong. Additionally, there are three major test suites for SQLite, and two of them (with a test coverage that still leaves most other open source projects in the dust) are open source and free. I can live with paying members getting additional testing possibilities.

mlvljr 10y ago
Question is, what defines the SQLITE API (if not elaborate tests)? The documentations is a bit scarce, that is :)

dalke 10y ago

Facts aren't copywriteable, and in the US a collection of facts is also not copyrwriteable. A test case is structured around an assertion of facts. To that extent, it is not copywriteable. But other parts of a test case, which have creative thought, are copywriteable. This can include the test name and any comments. If you manage to get ahold of the test suite, strip out all of the assertions, and create a new test system which does the same tests, then you might get a lawyer to agree that it's not copyright infringement. Even then, a test case might use something which is under copyright. For example, it may contain a poem, and check if the length of the poem is as expected. That said, if there were no copyright (let's say it's the 1960s, before copyright was extended to software), it could still be covered as a trade secret, and protected under confidentiality agreements. That is, copyright affects what you can do once you get the software, but you might not be able to get it in the first place. Therefore, while I understand and even empathize with your argument, I don't think you should based the argument in copywriteability. Instead, I think you should look to Stallman's argument for why documentation for a free software project should itself be free. If you modify the code, you should be able to modify the documentation instead of starting from scratch. https://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/manual/html_node/Free-Software-Needs-Free-Documentation.html https://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/manual/html_node/Free-Softw... By analogy, if you modify the code, you should be modify the test suite instead of starting from scratch. One obvious solution is to start your own GNU-licensed SQLite test suite, to, ahem, fight against the software hoarders. ;)