From lars at nocrew.org Tue May 18 06:08:12 2004 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: 18 May 2004 08:08:12 +0200 Subject: [Small-cl-src-discuss] Re: apply in terms of funcall In-Reply-To: <868yft6hmm.wl%asf@boinkor.net> References: <868yft6hmm.wl%asf@boinkor.net> Message-ID: <85oeomtghf.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Andreas Fuchs writes: > (apply-definer call-arguments-limit) Should be (define-apply call-arguments-limit) -- Lars Brinkhoff, Services for Unix, Linux, GCC, HTTP Brinkhoff Consulting http://www.brinkhoff.se/ From rpgoldman at sift.info Tue May 25 14:04:44 2004 From: rpgoldman at sift.info (Robert P. Goldman) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 09:04:44 -0500 Subject: [Small-cl-src-discuss] licenses? Message-ID: <16563.21116.104163.823226@gargle.gargle.HOWL> I've been reading the code snippets with great interest and appreciation. But I've been a little nervous about using any of them, for fear of raging attack lawyers. :-> More seriously, I don't want to abuse anyone's confidence by adopting code they were just sharing for pedagogical purposes. So, I was wondering, would people mind letting us know what sort of licenses they are putting on these code snippets? Or is there some standard license implied by posting to small-cl-src? Thanks, R From xach at xach.com Tue May 25 14:08:35 2004 From: xach at xach.com (Zach Beane) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 10:08:35 -0400 Subject: [Small-cl-src-discuss] licenses? In-Reply-To: <16563.21116.104163.823226@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <16563.21116.104163.823226@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: <20040525140835.GU6149@xach.com> On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 09:04:44AM -0500, Robert P. Goldman wrote: > > So, I was wondering, would people mind letting us know what sort of > licenses they are putting on these code snippets? FWIW, my recent post is in the public domain. Zach From ingvar at cathouse.bofh.se Tue May 25 14:18:43 2004 From: ingvar at cathouse.bofh.se (Ingvar) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 15:18:43 +0100 Subject: [Small-cl-src-discuss] licenses? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 25 May 2004 09:04:44 CDT." <16563.21116.104163.823226@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <16563.21116.104163.823226@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: Robert P. Goldman writes: > I've been reading the code snippets with great interest and > appreciation. But I've been a little nervous about using any of them, > for fear of raging attack lawyers. :-> More seriously, I don't want > to abuse anyone's confidence by adopting code they were just sharing > for pedagogical purposes. I'd be inclined to say "when in doubt, ask". Either us collectively or the author of any specific code snippet you're interested in using. > So, I was wondering, would people mind letting us know what sort of > licenses they are putting on these code snippets? Or is there some > standard license implied by posting to small-cl-src? There were some thoughts, but assorted web-fu problems, combined with a lack of time and mailman being a right bastard at the time meant I didn't get around to slap a general "Unless this, that or these terms-of-use please explicitly mention the terms" and I can't really do that retroactively. I could, of course, solicit opinions on what you, the users of small-cl-src, think and set a suitable cut-off date. I'd humbly suggest either "BSD with or without credit required" or "Public Domain" as the two least undesirable options, but as long as it's OK to (a) keep in the archives and (b) to redistribute, I'm fine with whatever people are fine with. //Ingvar From alanr-l at mumble.net Tue May 25 15:41:06 2004 From: alanr-l at mumble.net (Alan Ruttenberg) Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 11:41:06 -0400 Subject: [Small-cl-src-discuss] licenses? In-Reply-To: References: <16563.21116.104163.823226@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: I propose that the list policy is that postings are in the public domain unless otherwise specified in the body of the message, to keep this list maximally friendly and useful. Policy can be implemented with a note added to the mailing list description and automatic reminders and with a note automatically added to each message, to that effect. My two cents. -Alan On May 25, 2004, at 10:18 AM, Ingvar wrote: > Robert P. Goldman writes: >> I've been reading the code snippets with great interest and >> appreciation. But I've been a little nervous about using any of them, >> for fear of raging attack lawyers. :-> More seriously, I don't want >> to abuse anyone's confidence by adopting code they were just sharing >> for pedagogical purposes. > > I'd be inclined to say "when in doubt, ask". Either us collectively or > the > author of any specific code snippet you're interested in using. > >> So, I was wondering, would people mind letting us know what sort of >> licenses they are putting on these code snippets? Or is there some >> standard license implied by posting to small-cl-src? > > There were some thoughts, but assorted web-fu problems, combined with > a lack > of time and mailman being a right bastard at the time meant I didn't > get > around to slap a general "Unless this, that or these terms-of-use > please > explicitly mention the terms" and I can't really do that retroactively. > > I could, of course, solicit opinions on what you, the users of > small-cl-src, > think and set a suitable cut-off date. I'd humbly suggest either "BSD > with or > without credit required" or "Public Domain" as the two least > undesirable > options, but as long as it's OK to (a) keep in the archives and (b) to > redistribute, I'm fine with whatever people are fine with. > > //Ingvar > > > _______________________________________________ > Small-cl-src-discuss mailing list > Small-cl-src-discuss at hexapodia.net > http://head.cathouse.bofh.se:8080/mailman/listinfo/small-cl-src-discuss From rpgoldman at sift.info Wed May 26 15:15:21 2004 From: rpgoldman at sift.info (Robert P. Goldman) Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 10:15:21 -0500 Subject: [Small-cl-src-discuss] licenses? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16564.46217.244424.454557@gargle.gargle.HOWL> >>>>> "Alan" == Alan Ruttenberg writes: Alan> I propose that the list policy is that postings are in the Alan> public domain unless otherwise specified in the body of the Alan> message, to keep this list maximally friendly and Alan> useful. Policy can be implemented with a note added to the Alan> mailing list description and automatic reminders and with a Alan> note automatically added to each message, to that effect. Personally, I prefer assuming something like a BSD license. Why? I've been an academic and so I believe that it's important to be able to use the products of someone else's work, but I also believe that it's a real sin not to give credit for that work. Public domain means you don't have to give credit.... Cheers, R From darius_bacon at yahoo.com Fri May 28 19:35:54 2004 From: darius_bacon at yahoo.com (Darius Bacon) Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 19:35:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Small-cl-src-discuss] Re: licenses? References: <16563.21116.104163.823226@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: Robert P. Goldman sift.info> writes: > So, I was wondering, would people mind letting us know what sort of > licenses they are putting on these code snippets? Or is there some > standard license implied by posting to small-cl-src? My previous posting ("Transforming recursion to dynamic programming") is in the public domain. If I post again, I'll add a notice. Darius From lars at nocrew.org Fri May 28 20:37:48 2004 From: lars at nocrew.org (Lars Brinkhoff) Date: 28 May 2004 22:37:48 +0200 Subject: [Small-cl-src-discuss] Re: Funcallable macros References: <85y8ngrdpc.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Message-ID: <85lljcjnj7.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Lars Brinkhoff writes: > (compile nil `(lambda ,args ,(macroexpand `(,name , at args)))))) Slightly embarassed, I now recall that the compiler has a very useful feature: it expands macros automatically. Replace the line above with (compile nil `(lambda ,args (,name , at args))))) -- Lars Brinkhoff, Services for Unix, Linux, GCC, HTTP Brinkhoff Consulting http://www.brinkhoff.se/