[ros-dev] Re: Undocumented APIs

[mf]

Hiya,

Steven Edwards wrote:
> I would like to agree on language and put it to the standard 7 day
> vote. The emergency IRC meeting left some developers out due to time
> constraints. I think we all agree on the clean room, one reverses the
> other implements policy but I want to be sure we have the correct
> language in place.

After skyping with GreatLord (who still disagrees with the amendment as 
it is now) I would like to see "EITHER" clarified in the wording. You 
*either* supply documentation, *or* a test case. If you can't find 
documentation or a test case, you make said documentation or test case. 
In your current wording it could be misunderstood as "you need to supply 
documentation *and* a test case", which would simply be asking too much, 
at least imho. A lot of software use dirty tricks like direct binary 
addressing of private APIs (even for APIs that have perfectly functional 
public counterparts), for which finding test cases isn't realistic. 
Documenting all the addresses as obtained by disassembly and then having 
someone else implement it all, on the other hand, is realistic.

On another note, on #reactos-dev tamlin stated today:

17:37 <+tamlin> mf: I disagree that it is the problem. It is "only" one 
of many current problems as I see it. I also don't see it as all 
wrinkles as of yet having been ironed out.
18:47 <+tamlin> I came to think of something (I'm not suggesting this as 
workaround of anything, for anything): Does anyone really *know* what 
the legal status of "Trade Secret" (USA or other nations) is, if such 
information is publically available - whether the information, or even 
source code, has been acquired by legal or illegal means.
18:49 <+tamlin> I'm specifically thinking of Google, that I know at 
least in the past have made what's often referred to "proprietary, 
unpublished source code" available to anyone on the planet with a web 
browser and an internet connection.

Comments please.


mf