headers
Christophe Rhodes | 9 Jul 2002 20:07
Picon
Picon
Favicon

SBCL and Ilisp

I'm reporting this here, though it's not clear exactly whose fault it
is.  With the version of ilisp in Debian unstable, starting sbcl (via
M-x sbcl) results in cryptic error messages like
  ;;; debugger invoked on condition of type SB-INT:
and an unsuccessful initialization (though loading the common lisp files
from an sbcl repl throws no error)

I presume that something has changed on the sbcl end that the ilisp
regexes don't like...?

Cheers,

Christophe
--

-- 
Jesus College, Cambridge, CB5 8BL                           +44 1223 510 299
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/                  (defun pling-dollar 
(str schar arg) (first (last +))) (make-dispatch-macro-character #\! t)
(set-dispatch-macro-character #\! #\$ #'pling-dollar)

-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Stuff, things, and much much more.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Gregory Wright | 16 Jul 2002 02:58
Favicon

Re: SBCL and Ilisp

Hi Christophe,

I saw your note about this. I recently fixed the gcl regexps in ilisp
and thought I might try my hand at this problem.

In short, the trouble is with sbcl, not ilisp. In sbcl, if the file
/tmp/foobies does not exist,

* (load "/tmp/foobies" :if-does-not-exist nil)

NIL
* 

but if /tmp/foobies.fasl doesn't exist,

* (load "/tmp/foobies.fasl" :if-does-not-exist nil)

debugger invoked on condition of type SB-INT:SIMPLE-FILE-ERROR:
  The file "/tmp/foobies.fasl" does not exist.

Within the debugger, you can type HELP for help. At any command prompt
(within...

Ilisp tries to load compiled versions of the files first, with the
:if-does-not-exist key nil. It then loads the uncompiled versions.
The drop into the debugger before configuration is done confuses ilisp
completely.

This kind of thing is usually easy to spot by setting comint-log t,
which fills a buffer with the raw communication between ilisp and the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Marco Antoniotti | 18 Jul 2002 16:29
Picon

ILISP License Status.


Hi

I just received a mail from a friend who is putting together a special
Linux distribution which will contain Free Software Only.  He says
that they will not be able to include ILISP into it.

Now.  The license issue has been floating around for quite some time
and nevere resolved.  Essentially, some of the original authors of
ILISP may object putting the source under - say - LGPL.

I am inclined to send out a message to c.l.l. and the (X)Emacs groups
announcing the intention to move the code under the LGPL and see if
any of the original authors have strong objections.  If not, I propose
to put the code under the LGPL.

Any opinions regard this?

regards

--

-- 
Marco Antoniotti ========================================================
NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group        tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
719 Broadway 12th Floor                 fax  +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA                 http://bioinformatics.cat.nyu.edu
                    "Hello New York! We'll do what we can!"
                           Bill Murray in `Ghostbusters'.

-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Daniel Barlow | 18 Jul 2002 16:55

Re: ILISP License Status.

Marco Antoniotti <marcoxa <at> cs.nyu.edu> writes:

> I just received a mail from a friend who is putting together a special
> Linux distribution which will contain Free Software Only.  He says
> that they will not be able to include ILISP into it.

This is an issue for Debian as well: ilisp is only available in the
non-free section.  It would be great to have this cleared up.

> I am inclined to send out a message to c.l.l. and the (X)Emacs groups
> announcing the intention to move the code under the LGPL and see if
> any of the original authors have strong objections.  If not, I propose
> to put the code under the LGPL.
>
> Any opinions regard this?

Looking at the existing COPYING file (primarily the "Any work
distributed or published ..." clause) it seems to me that GPL would be
a closer match for the terms there than LGPL, for what that's worth.
But I also note the bit where it says -

| ILISP if freely redistributable. Eventually it may become part of GNU
| Emacs and it will in that case comply with the GPL.

Perhaps you could get the Emacs people to include it in Emacs so that
it automatically gets relicensed? :-)

-dan

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Matthias Koeppe | 18 Jul 2002 18:15
Picon

Re: ILISP License Status.

Daniel Barlow <dan <at> telent.net> writes:

> Looking at the existing COPYING file (primarily the "Any work
> distributed or published ..." clause) it seems to me that GPL would be
> a closer match for the terms there than LGPL, for what that's worth.
> But I also note the bit where it says -
>
> | ILISP if freely redistributable. Eventually it may become part of GNU
> | Emacs and it will in that case comply with the GPL.
>
> Perhaps you could get the Emacs people to include it in Emacs so that
> it automatically gets relicensed? :-)

Getting it into GNU Emacs (as distributed by the FSF) would be hard,
because the FSF would want legal papers from every contributor.  (That
would be more work than for simply changing the license.)  But doesn't
XEmacs count as a version of GNU Emacs?  Isn't ILISP already part of
XEmacs?  So maybe it *has* already got relicensed automatically, and
we just didn't notice ;)

Seriously, since the COPYING file says that ILISP may change to GPL at
some time, I can't imagine why a contributor would object when we make
that license change.

--

-- 
Matthias Köppe -- http://www.math.uni-magdeburg.de/~mkoeppe

-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Marco Antoniotti | 18 Jul 2002 18:25
Picon

Re: ILISP License Status.


> From: Matthias Koeppe <mkoeppe <at> saturn.math.uni-magdeburg.de>
> Sender: ilisp-devel-admin <at> lists.sourceforge.net
> X-Original-Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:15:53 +0200
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:15:53 +0200
> 
> Daniel Barlow <dan <at> telent.net> writes:
> 
> > Looking at the existing COPYING file (primarily the "Any work
> > distributed or published ..." clause) it seems to me that GPL would be
> > a closer match for the terms there than LGPL, for what that's worth.
> > But I also note the bit where it says -
> >
> > | ILISP if freely redistributable. Eventually it may become part of GNU
> > | Emacs and it will in that case comply with the GPL.
> >
> > Perhaps you could get the Emacs people to include it in Emacs so that
> > it automatically gets relicensed? :-)
> 
> Getting it into GNU Emacs (as distributed by the FSF) would be hard,
> because the FSF would want legal papers from every contributor.

Yep.  That was the main issue.  I have some vary old mail from RMS on
the very subject.

> (That
> would be more work than for simply changing the license.)  But doesn't
> XEmacs count as a version of GNU Emacs?  Isn't ILISP already part of
> XEmacs?  So maybe it *has* already got relicensed automatically, and
> we just didn't notice ;)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
synthespian | 18 Jul 2002 23:12
Favicon

Re: [Ilisp-help] Re: ILISP License Status.

Em Qui, 2002-07-18 às 13:15, Matthias Koeppe escreveu:
> Daniel Barlow <dan <at> telent.net> writes:
> 
> > Looking at the existing COPYING file (primarily the "Any work
> > distributed or published ..." clause) it seems to me that GPL would be
> > a closer match for the terms there than LGPL, for what that's worth.
> > But I also note the bit where it says -
> >
> > | ILISP if freely redistributable. Eventually it may become part of GNU
> > | Emacs and it will in that case comply with the GPL.
> >
> > Perhaps you could get the Emacs people to include it in Emacs so that
> > it automatically gets relicensed? :-)
> 
> Getting it into GNU Emacs (as distributed by the FSF) would be hard,
> because the FSF would want legal papers from every contributor.  (That
> would be more work than for simply changing the license.)  But doesn't
> XEmacs count as a version of GNU Emacs? 

	No. Stallman has serious legal objections regarding XEmacs that never
were resolved. And that will never be.

	Regs
	Henry
	synthespian <at> uol.com.br

-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Will Deakin | 19 Jul 2002 10:06
Favicon

ILISP License Status.

Matthias Koeppe wrote:
 > Isn't ILISP already part of XEmacs?  So maybe it *has* already got
 > relicensed automatically, and we just didn't notice ;)
I think ilisp is in an interesting position. Due to builds and stuff 
there are some code changes that are part of xemacs although most of 
the code is extant ilisp code.

As to the licensing, I *think* -- it's not something that causes me to 
loose a lot of sleep -- is that ilisp is bundled with xemacs but is an 
external package that has acceptable licensing. But I'm not a lawyer 
and this is probable wrong.

I hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion,

:)w

**********************************************************************
This email and its attachments are intended for the above 
named only and may be confidential.  If they have come to 
you in error, you must take no action based on them, nor 
must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this 
email and highlight the error.
Security Warning: Please note that this email has been 
created in the knowledge that the internet email is not a 
100% secure communications medium.  We advise that you 
understand and observe this lack of security when emailing us.
Viruses:  Although we have taken steps to ensure that this 
email and attachments are free from any virus, we advise 
that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient 
should ensure they are actually virus free.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Paolo Amoroso | 19 Jul 2002 14:39
Picon
Favicon

Re: ILISP License Status.

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:29:12 -0400, Marco Antoniotti wrote:

> I am inclined to send out a message to c.l.l. and the (X)Emacs groups
> announcing the intention to move the code under the LGPL and see if
> any of the original authors have strong objections.  If not, I propose
> to put the code under the LGPL.
> 
> Any opinions regard this?

Since I am not a "license algebra" expert, I have no particular comments on
this. Changing license is fine with me.

If you browse through the ChangeLog, you can collect several email
addresses of contributors, in case you need to contact them.

Paolo
--

-- 
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README

-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Paolo Amoroso | 19 Jul 2002 14:39
Picon
Favicon

Re: ILISP License Status.

On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:15:53 +0200, Matthias Koeppe wrote:

> Getting it into GNU Emacs (as distributed by the FSF) would be hard,

It would probably be hurd :) Sorry, couldn't resist.

Paolo
--

-- 
EncyCMUCLopedia * Extensive collection of CMU Common Lisp documentation
http://www.paoloamoroso.it/ency/README

-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane