4 ms·
None of that matters. The header is there, in writing, and discussed in the PR. It is acknowledged by both parties and the author gives a clumsy response for it
by spookie 10mo ago
None of that matters. The header is there, in writing, and discussed in the PR. It is acknowledged by both parties and the author gives a clumsy response for its existence. The PR is simply tainted by this alone, not to mention other pain points.
You may not consider this problematic. But maintainers of this project sure do, given this was one of the immediate concerns of theirs.
- joelreymont 10mo agoOxCaml is a fork of OCaml, they have the same license. I wasn't able to find any chunks of code copied wholesale from OxCaml which already has a DWARF implementation. All that code wasn't written by Mark, AI just decided to paste his copyright all over.
- menaerus 10mo agoIt matters because it completely weakens their point of stance and make them look unreasonable. Header is irrelevant since it isn't copyright infringement, and FWIW when it has been corrected (in the MR), then they decided that the MR is too complex for them and closed the whole issue. Ridiculous.
- biorach 10mo agoAn incorrect copyright header is a major red flag for non technical reasons. If you think it is an irrelevant minor matter then you do not undesirable several very important social and legal aspects of the issue.
- menaerus 10mo agoSocial maybe yes what legal aspects? Everybody keeps repeating that but there is no copyright infringement. Maybe you can point me to one? I understand that people are uncomfortable with this, I am likely too, but objectively looking there's technically nothing wrong or different to what humans already do.
- biorach 10mo agoThe point is that it ended up in the PR in the first place. The submitted seemed unaware of its presence and only looked into it after it was pointed out. This is sloppy and is a major red flag.
- menaerus 10mo agoSo there's no point? Sloppy maybe yes but technically incorrect or legally questionable no. Struggle is real
- pepoluan 10mo agoIf the submitter is sloppy with things that are not complicated, how can one be sure of things that ARE complicated?
- menaerus 10mo agoThe funny thing is that it works, have a look at the MR. It says: All existing tests pass. Additional DWARF tests verify: DWARF structure (DW_TAG_compile_unit, DW_TAG_subprogram). Breakpoints by function and line in both GDB and LLDB. Type information and variable visibility. Correct multi-object linking. Platform-specific relocation handling. So the burden of proof is obviously not anymore on the MR submitter side but the other.