DragonFly BSD
DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2009-11
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: mandoc + re-using POSIX specs

From: Niklas Rosencrantz <niklasro@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:32:20 -0500

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Stathis Kamperis <ekamperi@gmail.com> wrote:
> For once more, I forgot to press "reply to all":
> 2009/11/3 Saifi Khan <saifi.khan@datasynergy.org>:
>> Hi:
>> While there is a discussion happening (on another thread) in the
>> context of usage of mandoc, is it a good idea to review the
>> 'possibility of re-using POSIX specs for manual pages' ?
>> the original thread is here,
>> http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/docs/2004-01/index.html
>> i've read the entire 'docs' 2003-till date archives and couldn't
>> figure out how the POSIX related discussion was concluded.
>> What is the current understanding on this issue ?
> We are already using stuff from POSIX specs, giving of course the
> proper attribution.
> E.g., http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/cgi/web-man?command=mq_open&section=ANY
> E.g, http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/cgi/web-man?command=csinh&section=ANY
> (all complex arithmetic functions, and perhaps other math-related
> functions as well)
> (look at the big COPYRIGHT section in the end of it).
> I've read the old thread you pasted. I honestly don't know whether we
> should explicitly be granted the right to do so or putting the
> COPYRIGHT section is enough. Both the examples I mentioned refer to
> source code that was ported from NetBSD and FreeBSD. As stupid as it
> may sound, do you people think that I should contact Open Group "just
> in case" ?
> Legal matters put aside, I think that we should only do it if we
> provide an implementation that is ~100% close to the standard _and_ we
> don't have the human/time resource to roll our own docs.
> Best regards,
> Stathis Kamperis

Legally poisonous the BSD copyright I understand are way flexible to
commercialize compared to like POSIX classes. And technically the
regex parts I either don't fully understand or are "inconsistent"
relative logical complement, where a stronger logic criterion not only
consistent, more physical approach any value has physical
interpretation for applicables such NP, halting, and onwards. In
short, usable info whether regex POSIX part is "consistent" or exactly
what we mean when we say POSIX regex defined in terms of "complience"
or "compatibility" when using a regex complement implies infinity.
Thank you

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