On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 05:06:01PM -0500, Rich Bowen wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Rich Bowen wrote: > > It would be advantageous from our pint of view to have the Perl version, so > > we'd be happy to make similar arrangements. We do expect that the Perl > > translation would be a full translation of all the Lisp code, not just > > selections from it. > > I also found this remark to be interesting. They would endorse s full > translation, but not a partial one. Now I, personally, find the Vedic > calendar much more interesting than the B'hai calendar, for example, and > so would likely be inclined to implement that first, and the B'hai one > later, if at all. It would be unfortunate if I was not permitted to > release one before the other was ready. I really wish I could have an > actual conversation with these guys, and try to understand what their > motivation is for these restrictions.
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 03:40:57PM -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote: > - Point out that at least some portion of this code is _already_ Free > Software. See > http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/emacs/emacs/lisp/calendar/ If this is the case, then why not just use the elisp code as a guide and reimplement the interesting bits in a perlish manner? CC can serve as a body of external documentation on how the code works. This certainly won't qualify as a clean room implementation, but since anyone who is interested in writing Date / Time modules in Perl has probably read CC already, I don't think that's a possibility. It doesn't solve the pseudo-legalistic bullying issues, but it sounds like a defensible position to start from. Z.
