[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Axiom-developer] Bug#752221: [axiom] Some sources are not included

From: Camm Maguire
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Bug#752221: [axiom] Some sources are not included in your package
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:25:30 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.4 (gnu/linux)

severity 752221 important

Greetings!  And thank you again for all your work on Debian and free

Ansgar Burchardt <address@hidden> writes:

> Control: reopen -1
> Camm Maguire <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> The file alleged to be problematic:
>>>> src/axiom-website/axiomgraph/js/arbor.js
>>> I respectfully disagree according to source it is minified from at least:
>>> *   etc.js
>>> *   kernel.js
>>> *  atoms.js
>>> *  system.js
>>> *  physics.js
>> Greetings!  Respectfully, comments /* etc.js */ are proof of no such
>> thing.
> Umm, the very comments that says which files it is generated from is
> proof that it is not a generated file?

Indeed, how do we know from the comments that the alleged output has not
been edited, making it the 'original source'?

I agree that the comments and the formatting are suggestive.  I think
from your use of the word 'might' below that we are in agreement here.

> Also please take a look at [1]. That might be the actual source for the
> line with "/* kernel.js */" (minus version and so on).
>   [1] <>

This makes things clearer -- thanks!  In general, to establish this
case, I think one needs either

1) the original sources together with the program that produces the file
in question, or
2) a claim by the original author that these files are simply machine
output from other files.

I've done some spot checking, and the correspondence appears close, but
not exact.  In any case, I'm including the mentioned sources in the next
axiom upload, as they are published under the free MIT license in any

> Note that the source version has whitespace, informative variable names
> and comments. These are all stripped by the minimization "compiler"
> (which translates Javascript into Javascript).

While I certainly share the goal of having source that is easily
readable by a human, I do wonder at the original claim that including
source in 'minimized' format somehow violates copy-left.  Where do we
get this idea?  I can assure you that lines of code I've contributed,
including assembler, look far more forbidding and less readable than
this javascript.  If we do not use the standard of 'compiling into the
executable' as the standard, whose human beauty standards are we going
to use?  What about C beautifiers, or even emacs auto-indent?

Take care,

> Ansgar

Camm Maguire                                        address@hidden
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]