[apt4ssx8] Re: Some clarification on the code
- From: Dave Caroline <dave.thearchivist@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: apt4ssx8@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 05:57:15 +0000
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 5:12 AM, dave <dengvall@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 00:04 -0500, Matt Shaver wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:46:14 -0700
>> Brent Muller <bmuller@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi guys-
>> > I recently got a little clarification from the original submitter of
>> > the code:
>> >
>> > >Hi Brent,
>> > >Yesterday, I mailed you a CD with the unzipped code and the
>> > >documentation.
>> > >
>> > >I think I may need to clarify one thing; I can't represent that this
>> > >code is in the public domain. The package was purchased from Cam-I
>> > >20+ years ago. I don't know what it's official status is currently.
>>
>> Here's an interesting thread that describes somewhat the history of some
>> of this:
>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/alt.machines.cnc/apt4/alt.machines.cnc/jdq-uAj0dYY
>>
>> I _think_ that this computer code is either in the public domain, or in
>> that weird state of being "a Work of the United States Government", or
>> quite possibly there is no one left who cares what happens.
>>
>> > I guess I am interpreting that to mean that we should just work on
>> > this privately, perhaps on a private site, until we get the
>> > government okay. What do you guys think?
>>
>> Since the issue is raised, it requires consideration. We have a
>> reasonable expectation that relatively soon we'll have a copy from NASA
>> on terms that will allow free, open research and use. I propose that,
>> until we have more information on this (hopefully from NASA), we have a
>> gentleman's agreement amongst us that anyone who is interested in
>> fooling with this code will e-mail Brent to get their initial copy.
>> Since there are only 9 people subscribed to this list, that's actually
>> a reasonable approach :) This way, Brent will know who has copies in
>> case someone objects. As a condition of receiving the code, you need to
>> agree to erase it from your computer if requested. I think this is a
>> reasonable standard of care considering the circumstances.
>>
>> > Do you guys have thoughts on how best to share the code amongst
>> > ourselves? Preferences on tools, e.g., Subversion, Git, etc?
>>
>> Tomorrow, I'll do some research into free, but access controlled, git
>> hosts. If this exists, that's even easier than e-mailing copies of the
>> code and allows for some collaboration if desired.
>
> Controlled access (for record keeping) certainly makes sense.
>
> My weak and aging mind also thinks that we need some metric of how
> different this code is from the original V4 that Brent worked on.
>
> I believe Matt suggested using meld to elucidate differences.
That was me, I want to see what the basic changes are to enable string
processing using sensible methods rather than the original codes use
of number fields and arrays of numbers.
I imagine a lot of similarity and a code style change or a large
refactor I still have a slight dream of getting the original compiling
on a modern compiler.
Dave Caroline
>
> I'm neutral since I have no knowledge of the best way to go about it.
>
>
> Dave
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Matt
>>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
