Can someone please clarify GCL's status as a FSF "product"? The maintainer
states that it's GPL in the readme, but www.fsf.org doesn't mention it,
not even on the lists of non-FSF-but-GPL or non-GPL-but-free software. And
of course ftp references mention UTexas, not Gnu mirrors. Is this a
hangover from some AKCL-license soap-opera? (But didn't that take place,
oh, five or six years ago?)
+-------------------->
| Nick Geovanis Optimists tend to be promoted, so the
| IT Computing Svcs higher up in the organization you are,
| Northwestern Univ the more optimistic you tend to be.
V ··········@nwu.edu - "Davis's Law" (Tom Davis, SGI)
Nicholas Geovanis <·······@merle.acns.nwu.edu> writes:
>Can someone please clarify GCL's status as a FSF "product"? The maintainer
>states that it's GPL in the readme, but www.fsf.org doesn't mention it,
>not even on the lists of non-FSF-but-GPL or non-GPL-but-free software. And
>of course ftp references mention UTexas, not Gnu mirrors. Is this a
>hangover from some AKCL-license soap-opera? (But didn't that take place,
>oh, five or six years ago?)
I think the problem is that no active maintainace happens for it.
All requests I've seen for "GNU Common Lisp" in the last years were
apparently not triggered by a person who wanted the specific gcl
implementation, but by idiots who think that all free software is GNU
software and/or that "GNU" is a special quality brand amoung free
software.
I appears to me that this is neither good for the FSF nor for Lisp,
since people try the "quality-branded" Lisp and are disappointed.
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <········@bik-gmbh.de> http://www.bik-gmbh.de/~cracauer/
FreeBSD - where you want to go. Today. http://www.freebsd.org/
········@counter.bik-gmbh.de (Martin Cracauer) writes:
> All requests I've seen for "GNU Common Lisp" in the last years were
> apparently not triggered by a person who wanted the specific gcl
> implementation, but by idiots who think that all free software is GNU
> software and/or that "GNU" is a special quality brand amoung free
> software.
>
About the only think I use it for is to get a working MAXIMA. Bill
Schelter claims that it should compile in any CL but there are some
very hairy things going on that cause it to only work with GCL.
--
Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be>
If there are aliens, they play Go. -- Lasker
Clemens Heitzinger <········@rainbow.studorg.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> Maxima works with clisp, doesn't it?
>
I'll try. Thanks for the hint.
--
Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be>
If there are aliens, they play Go. -- Lasker
In article <··············@localhost.localdomain>,
Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be> wrote:
>About the only think I use it [GCL] for is to get a working MAXIMA. Bill
>Schelter claims that it should compile in any CL but there are some
>very hairy things going on that cause it to only work with GCL.
I got MAXIMA to work under MCL a few years ago. There was one
problem though: user input wasn't editable in the normal way;
any backspaces or whatever would get passed through. But I
had lost interest and never got around to fixing this. If
anyone wants it, I suppose I could dust it off.
--
John E. Doner, UCSB Math. Dept., ·····@math.ucsb.edu
·····@math.ucsb.edu (John Doner) writes:
> I got MAXIMA to work under MCL a few years ago. There was one
> problem though: user input wasn't editable in the normal way;
> any backspaces or whatever would get passed through. But I
> had lost interest and never got around to fixing this. If
> anyone wants it, I suppose I could dust it off.
I never got that far. There is a place in db.lisp where he tries to
define macros that play weird games with property list (the
DEFINE-MODE stuff in mrgmac).
--
Lieven Marchand <···@bewoner.dma.be>
If there are aliens, they play Go. -- Lasker
Not all of us "Idiots" thought that...
> All requests I've seen for "GNU Common Lisp" in the last years were
> apparently not triggered by a person who wanted the specific gcl
> implementation, but by idiots who think that all free software is GNU
> software and/or that "GNU" is a special quality brand amoung free
> software.
Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
> Can someone please clarify GCL's status as a FSF "product"?
For me the question is: `can someone please clarify GCL's status?' As far as I
am aware, (but would happy to be corrected), it is moribund in a post cltl pre
cltl2 limbo state.
Maybe it should be called GGL since if this is the case it is not a common
lisp, more of a garden lisp
;) will