Re: The Future of Euphoria
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Apr 09, 2017
- 2353 views
As for reporting dead links, I've not tried it, but it can be done with wget:
It's easier on windoze, using wget and console cmd findstr
wget -r -nv -ologfile.txt http://google.com/qwkutyeiobeywfjsbu.html
With a minor tweak (replacing findstr with grep -F), those commands will run on a nix system, so I'd call it equally easy.
findstr "ERROR 404:" "e:\wget-11\logfile.txt" > e:\wget-11\logfile2.txt
And on nix, this does the same:
grep -F "ERROR 404:" logfile.txt > logfile2.txt
http://google.com/qwkutyeiobeywfjsbu.html: 2017-04-09 13:27:25 ERROR 404: Not Found.Open the logfile in a text editor, search-replace the '/n' before the date, save file, then use
On nix (or even Windoze with the right toolkit), this step is even easier. Just do something like this (untested):
cat logfile.txt | tr '\n' '@' | sed 's/:@20/: 20/g' | tr '@' '\n' > logfile1.txt
If you do NOT use wget option "spider" you will have a copy of the page that's on the server,
Agreed.
which may be different than what's in your local copy.
Assuming that one possesses another local copy in the first place. I'm just speculating here, but I suspect that in most cases Pete wouldn't have one.
those after the date of logfile2 will be the ones you fixed and can re-up to the server.
This is probably fine for an offline backup copy (IANAL but IIRC U.S. copyright law - or maybe case law surrounding copyright law - explicitly allows for making backup copies without permission), but if hosting publicly, one might also want to ask the original hostmaster for explicit permission.
I am sure i have said the creole on this site is borked.
Agreed (that you have said so in the past).
Not that you're the only one. Some dicussion about fixing this was made in the past but the end result was just to better document the behavior: http://openeuphoria.org/forum/120094.wc
Before we ask permission to back them up here, perhaps we should find someone here who has the time and the interest?
First someone should ask Rob. The last time, the answer was a firm NO:
First of all, /forum/m/126500.wc is a different topic, and the only part of that post slightly relavant to now is
Agreed. That was the part that I was referring to. Apologies for any confusion.
I suggested user archives on openeuphoria.org for libs and apps donated, which run on OE and not RDS's versions. This was roundly shot down as politically slapping Robert Craig in the face. I still support it,
And then jimcbrown reported his memory, not a quote from RobC saying "NO":
Agreed, it was a paraphrase, but I stand by it - the answer was a firm no - even if RDS didn't use those exact words.
Well, it was Rob who shot it down. Jeremy was the first one who proposed this IIRC, back in 2008 or so, with the new forum, only to be told no. (The exchange was between a member of RDS and Jeremy, iirc. The rest of the dev team wasn't involved.)
At this late date, I don't remember specifically if it was Rob, or another member of RDS, or maybe even a group decision from all of RDS's members. (All two of them.) But RDS told Jeremy no, clearly and firmly.
For RDS to accept source code that doesn't run on RDS's Euphoria,
I think that's OK because OpenEuphoria is a derived work of RDS Euphoria, and IIUC RDS technically still holds copyright over it.
and then not allowing it to be posted elsewhere,
This is a bit of a tricky question. Jeremy's interpretation was that the original authors who submitted to the RDS Archives generally intended for the code to be shared freely and therefore would have no problems moving it.
More importantly, since RDS owns the openeuphoria.org domain and technically the OpenEuphoria group is under the RDS umbrella (rather than being a wholly separate and independent entity), in a sense any openeuphoria.org-based Archives would still be run by RDS. Thus we believe that fewer copyright and distrubution issues come up if openeuphoria.org could directly host the Archives (than if a completely independent person or group tried to do so).
That said, if an independent person wanted to do this, I think I can speak for the entire OpenEuphoria Group in saying that we'd have no objections. But it's still RDS that would need to be contacted for permission.
I think it would be like IBM copyrighting all computer code written since 1971 as being derivative of the 4004 cpu.
Agreed. I don't think RDS holds copyright to most of the Archive, however - that probably remains with the original authors, who have simply given permission to RDS (and maybe ONLY RDS) to distribute their submissions.
