4 ms·

Agreed. It would also be good of this Rust project to state that all of the utils are original works and no one has peeked at the C sources. Perhaps the maintai

Agreed. It would also be good of this Rust project to state that all of the utils are original works and no one has peeked at the C sources. Perhaps the maintainers of the C versions should do the same in reverse.

moocowtruck 6y ago
https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/search?q=gnu https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/search?q=gnu "This is the way it was implemented in GNU split." i dunno maybe there are cases where they copy more than behavior... but interesting to look through
- okl 6y ago
  There are more examples, here is one: // a few global constants as used in the GNU implementation
- danudey 6y ago
  It's pretty easy to ask someone "Hey, can you go take a look at GNU split and see how they handle this case?" and then implement your own clean-room solution afterwards. Alternately, to solve the problem yourself and mention it to someone and have them say "that's how GNU split does it, so why not?"
  - eximius 6y ago
    Isn't that, by definition, not a clean-room solution?
    - moonchild 6y ago
      ‘Clean-room reverse engineering’ refers to the practice of having one person look at disassembled source code, spec sheets, actual behaviour, etc. of some program; describe that behaviour to a second person; and having the second person implement the described behaviour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall#Reverse_engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall#Reverse_engineeri...
      - eximius 6y ago
        Ah, that's interesting! I didn't know that was a sufficient insulation of IP.
        moocowtruck 6y ago
        yea seems pretty easy then right, sounds like no source that is available for eyes to see is safe from 'clean room reverse engineering'
amenod 6y ago
> Perhaps the maintainers of the C versions should do the same in reverse. Nitpick: they don't need to, they can just attribute the Rust developers if needed. They can also just take MIT code and publish it under GPL (reverse is not true).
- flangert 6y ago
  Taking MIT code and re-licensing it under the GPL will cause a huge uproar: http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070913014315 http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070913014315 I'm not sure that is even legal.
  - ben_bai 6y ago
    It's doable if you can get OK from every single copyright owner of the source files. LLVM did it. Switching from "University of Illinois/NCSA" to "APL 2.0". But not without some big discussions.
  - amenod 6y ago
    I didn't mean re-licensing it - the parts that are under MIT stay under MIT, but the patches on it have a different license. That is completely legal and license doesn't forbid this. (ianal, yadda yadda...) A similar thing happened to OpenOffice / LibreOffice: [0] > OpenOffice uses the Apache License, whereas LibreOffice uses a dual LGPLv3/Mozilla Public license. > For some legal reasons, then, anything OpenOffice does can be incorporated into LibreOffice, the terms of the license permit that. But if LibreOffice adds something, take font embedding, for example, OpenOffice can’t legally incorporate that code. [0] https://hackaday.com/2020/11/02/openoffice-or-libreoffice-a-star-is-torn/ https://hackaday.com/2020/11/02/openoffice-or-libreoffice-a-...

moocowtruck 6y ago

https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/search?q=gnu https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/search?q=gnu "This is the way it was implemented in GNU split." i dunno maybe there are cases where they copy more than behavior... but interesting to look through

okl 6y ago
There are more examples, here is one: // a few global constants as used in the GNU implementation
danudey 6y ago
It's pretty easy to ask someone "Hey, can you go take a look at GNU split and see how they handle this case?" and then implement your own clean-room solution afterwards. Alternately, to solve the problem yourself and mention it to someone and have them say "that's how GNU split does it, so why not?"
- eximius 6y ago
  Isn't that, by definition, not a clean-room solution?
  - moonchild 6y ago
    ‘Clean-room reverse engineering’ refers to the practice of having one person look at disassembled source code, spec sheets, actual behaviour, etc. of some program; describe that behaviour to a second person; and having the second person implement the described behaviour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall#Reverse_engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall#Reverse_engineeri...
    - eximius 6y ago
      Ah, that's interesting! I didn't know that was a sufficient insulation of IP.
      - moocowtruck 6y ago
        yea seems pretty easy then right, sounds like no source that is available for eyes to see is safe from 'clean room reverse engineering'

amenod 6y ago

> Perhaps the maintainers of the C versions should do the same in reverse. Nitpick: they don't need to, they can just attribute the Rust developers if needed. They can also just take MIT code and publish it under GPL (reverse is not true).

flangert 6y ago
Taking MIT code and re-licensing it under the GPL will cause a huge uproar: http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070913014315 http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070913014315 I'm not sure that is even legal.
- ben_bai 6y ago
  It's doable if you can get OK from every single copyright owner of the source files. LLVM did it. Switching from "University of Illinois/NCSA" to "APL 2.0". But not without some big discussions.
- amenod 6y ago
  I didn't mean re-licensing it - the parts that are under MIT stay under MIT, but the patches on it have a different license. That is completely legal and license doesn't forbid this. (ianal, yadda yadda...) A similar thing happened to OpenOffice / LibreOffice: [0] > OpenOffice uses the Apache License, whereas LibreOffice uses a dual LGPLv3/Mozilla Public license. > For some legal reasons, then, anything OpenOffice does can be incorporated into LibreOffice, the terms of the license permit that. But if LibreOffice adds something, take font embedding, for example, OpenOffice can’t legally incorporate that code. [0] https://hackaday.com/2020/11/02/openoffice-or-libreoffice-a-star-is-torn/ https://hackaday.com/2020/11/02/openoffice-or-libreoffice-a-...