> - one will look at old and current implementation and will describe
> how must be the original source changed to do the same job as the
> current version. This description should be as general as possible -
> no code. For example "use ZeroDivide instead of general error",
> "LdInstLong was renamed to LoadLong" etc. Some descriptions are
> present in the old version of license audit
> (http://comtalk.eu/public/pub/KernelImage/license/license2.ods)

This is great work.  But, how is an accessor copyrightable?  In your pdf 
I see methods like

sourceForm
     ^sourceForm

paleBlue
     ^PaleBlue

e
     ^E

isFloat
     ^true

one
     "A comment that is probably obsolete by now."
     ^1.0

These are clearly not possible to write differently; and it would be as 
worse to rewrite the same code "stealing" attribution from the original 
author, as it is to change the distribution license under the feet of 
someone who hasn't assigned copyright papers.  It is clearly a stalemate 
here unfortunately and it has to be sorted out asap.

> - the second person/team must not see the current code! 

In theory they shouldn't even look at the PDF you linked...

Paolo