[Compiler-sig] P2C stuff (was: Compiler-sig digest, Vol 1 #7 - 2 msgs)

[Mark Hammond]

> > >   MH> If you just change the COPYRIGHT file to reflect that it was
> > >   MH> taken from the P2C project and renamed to "compiler.tools"
> > >   MH> everyone should be happy I would think...
>
> I'm a bit unclear on what is proposed here... If (portions of?) P2C
> becomes compiler.tools, then I don't think that you'd want to put more
> stuff in there (implying that it was Bill's/mine).

Well, to be honest, I _would_ be happy with that :-)

> Now, if you said "files X,Y,Z are subject to the following copyright
> statement and license: ...", then I'd be just as happy.

Of course.  Whatever.  If there ended up 1 or 2 extra files, then their
copyright could just be asserted in the source code.  If there end up being
lots of stuff, then the copyright could be changed to reflect the files
taken from the P2C project, and those new files.  People around here
understand how this stuff works.

> Or if the P2C stuff was placed into "compiler.p2c".

It doesnt make as much sense to have "compiler.p2c.tranformer".
compiler.p2c is where the p2c specific code would live.

>     "Do what you want with it, but please don't try to pass it off as your
>      own work."

Geez - I hope you didnt seriously think that anyone here was trying to, or
had any intention of doing this?  Your email starts with the quote about how
it is important to retain the copyright.  Just because I didnt "dot every i
and cross every t" but assumed that the readers are capable of knowing how
the copyright stuff should work, there is no need to start throwing stuff
like this around :-(

Mark.

>
> That said: feel free to organize the stuff however you feel, and don't
> feel obligated to run your decision past me.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> --
> Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Compiler-sig mailing list
> Compiler-sig@python.org
> http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/compiler-sig
>