Does anything like the Mozilla foundation exist in the lisp world?
I've heard that the Mozilla foundation gets most of their money from
Google through the search thing embedded in Firefox.
On the face of it, doing the same with lisp seems much harder (web
browsers have hundreds of millions of users), but what about banner
ads and donations?
Such an organization could provide funding to people that would:
* improve free implementations (porting OpenMCL to 32-bit x86
machines, for example)
* write more good documentation (Peter Seibel's Practical Common Lisp
doesn't cover graphics or desktop apps, among other things)
* improve the libraries of a single free lisp implementation across at
least three popular platforms (OS X, Windows, Linux) - paying special
attention to removing unnecessary dependencies (X should never be
required except on Linux or the BSDs, but frequently it's a dependency
for doing graphics on OS X or Windows), and easy installation
(everything possible should be included in the initial download, from
OpenGL to support for history in the REPL)
* build and maintain nice, separate IDEs for each platform that follow
the human interface guidelines of the native platform
··········@gmail.com writes:
> On the face of it, doing the same with lisp seems much harder (web
> browsers have hundreds of millions of users), but what about banner
> ads and donations?
I've done a little bit of Lisp-related advertising, and I have a
couple ad-related questions.
Where would the ads go?
What sort of people do you think would be looking at the ads?
How many people do you think would see the ads?
What commercial enterprises would be interested in marketing to that
audience?
How much do you think those advertisers would pay to reach the
audience that would see the ads?
Could you experiment with your plan without anyone else cooperating
with you? (That might be the easiest way to move forward.)
Zach
Zach Beane <····@xach.com> wrote:
> What sort of people do you think would be looking at the ads?
Not me.. and if any ad makes it around my ad blocker, I'll surely not
buy anything from that company. I think that's true for most in the tech
community and your naive-consumer-grade web-"surfers" typically don't
frequent Lisp sites, I'd think.
On 2007-08-12, ··········@gmail.com <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anything like the Mozilla foundation exist in the lisp world?
>
> I've heard that the Mozilla foundation gets most of their money from
> Google through the search thing embedded in Firefox.
>
> On the face of it, doing the same with lisp seems much harder (web
> browsers have hundreds of millions of users), but what about banner
> ads and donations?
umm where? You would need a business to manage placement, collections
and such.
>
> Such an organization could provide funding to people that would:
>
> * improve free implementations (porting OpenMCL to 32-bit x86
> machines, for example)
This would put it in direct compition with the commercial lisps, bad.
> * write more good documentation (Peter Seibel's Practical Common Lisp
> doesn't cover graphics or desktop apps, among other things)
Whose GUI system are we talking about anyway, Allegro, Lispworks, win32
or something else? GUI is not common/standardized
> * improve the libraries of a single free lisp implementation across at
> least three popular platforms (OS X, Windows, Linux) - paying special
> attention to removing unnecessary dependencies (X should never be
> required except on Linux or the BSDs, but frequently it's a dependency
> for doing graphics on OS X or Windows), and easy installation
> (everything possible should be included in the initial download, from
> OpenGL to support for history in the REPL)
Now you are striping off all of the other free implamentations.
> * build and maintain nice, separate IDEs for each platform that follow
> the human interface guidelines of the native platform
umm emacs? Personally I prefer to have the same interface across platforms
so I only have to keep one set of what is right and proper in my head.
Also you are confusing firefox, a product *in* the web browser space, vs
Common Lisp, a space with multiple products *in* it.
I do not see how this would be workable or good, on the bright side I have
been wrong many times in my life.
marc
--
······@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
On Aug 12, 1:25 pm, marc spitzer <······@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
> On 2007-08-12, ··········@gmail.com <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Does anything like the Mozilla foundation exist in the lisp world?
>
> > I've heard that the Mozilla foundation gets most of their money from
> > Google through the search thing embedded in Firefox.
>
> > On the face of it, doing the same with lisp seems much harder (web
> > browsers have hundreds of millions of users), but what about banner
> > ads and donations?
>
> umm where? You would need a business to manage placement, collections
> and such.
Ads could be shown on a site hosting docs and downlads. Donations
could be encouraged by giving ad-free pages to those that donate (ad-
blockers notwithstanding.)
>
>
> > Such an organization could provide funding to people that would:
>
> > * improve free implementations (porting OpenMCL to 32-bit x86
> > machines, for example)
>
> This would put it in direct compition with the commercial lisps, bad.
Why is this bad? Commerical lisps are too expensive and suck anyway
(from what I hear.) One example is Lispworks's IDE, which doesn't
follow Apple human interface guidelines. Another is that none of its
OpenGL demos seem to work. (Not to mention the built-in time limit in
the free edition.) I haven't tried all the other commercial lisps, but
some of them don't even have IDEs!
> > * write more good documentation (Peter Seibel's Practical Common Lisp
> > doesn't cover graphics or desktop apps, among other things)
>
> Whose GUI system are we talking about anyway, Allegro, Lispworks, win32
> or something else? GUI is not common/standardized
Native GUIs are best - trying to tie them together in a single
framework encourages ugly apps that are anti-user in nature (good apps
follow local UI guidelines.) So why not write separate docs for the
major systems out there, like Cocoa, WPF/XAML, Win32, GTK+ and QT?
>
> > * improve the libraries of a single free lisp implementation across at
> > least three popular platforms (OS X, Windows, Linux) - paying special
> > attention to removing unnecessary dependencies (X should never be
> > required except on Linux or the BSDs, but frequently it's a dependency
> > for doing graphics on OS X or Windows), and easy installation
> > (everything possible should be included in the initial download, from
> > OpenGL to support for history in the REPL)
>
> Now you are striping off all of the other free implamentations.
So what? Assuming enough money came in, there'd be no problem with
paying people to maintain forks.
> > * build and maintain nice, separate IDEs for each platform that follow
> > the human interface guidelines of the native platform
>
> umm emacs? Personally I prefer to have the same interface across platforms
> so I only have to keep one set of what is right and proper in my head.
Lots of people like emacs, and that's fine. But many people that are
new to lisp are used to graphical IDEs like VS and Xcode, and won't
bother learning lisp if it means having to work without what they're
used to (jumping into lisp itself is a big enough leap).
You might prefer a single interface across platforms, but most users
don't. I have never seen a single successful attempt at a cross-
platform GUI, ever (meaning one that completely fooled me into
thinking that there's nothing fishy about the app.)
> Also you are confusing firefox, a product *in* the web browser space, vs
> Common Lisp, a space with multiple products *in* it.
I was trying to be abstract/impartial, but I really meant OpenMCL (I
just can't run it yet because I don't have a 64-bit Mac.)
> I do not see how this would be workable or good, on the bright side I have
> been wrong many times in my life.
>
> marc
> --
> ······@sdf.lonestar.org
> SDF Public Access UNIX System -http://sdf.lonestar.org
On Aug 12, 3:23 pm, ···········@gmail.com" <··········@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 12, 1:25 pm, marc spitzer <······@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
[...]
> > umm where? You would need a business to manage placement, collections
> > and such.
> Ads could be shown on a site hosting docs and downlads. Donations
> could be encouraged by giving ad-free pages to those that donate (ad-
> blockers notwithstanding.)
I don't think that's likely to draw a substantial amount of revenue in
the foreseeable future. Lots of people use web browsers. Lots more
than programming languages, even ones much more mainstream than Common
Lisp.
[...]
> > This would put it in direct compition with the commercial lisps, bad.
> Why is this bad?
The commercial Lisp implementations are a major part of the Common
Lisp "ecology", and the companies that support them are pretty
important to the community. Having some sort of "foundation" that
promotes CL is not a bad idea, but doing it without the support of
Franz, LispWorks et al. is not likely to be successful.
I think having good Open Source Lisps is also good for the community,
but they exist already and some of them have lots of people working on
them to help them succeed.
> Commerical lisps are too expensive and suck anyway (from what I hear.) One
> example is Lispworks's IDE, which doesn't follow Apple human interface guidelines.
The LW IDE isn't really to my taste, but it does a creditable job
being Maclike. It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than a
lot of the stuff I've used, and compares particularly favorably to a
lot of other "cross-platform" apps. Besides, some of the compromises
are clearly intended to make it more Emacslike, which for a CL
implementation is a reasonable compromise to make.
> (Not to mention the built-in time limit in the free edition.)
Well, yeah. It's, um, a trial edition. If you want a free Lisp without
that sort of limitation, it's not hard to find one.
[...]
> > Now you are striping off all of the other free implamentations.
> So what?
So there are many free editors, web-browsers, desktop systems and OSes
out there. Why should there only be one free Lisp implementation?
There's actually enough interest to support several free
implementations, despite the small size of the community. That's
something interesting and almost unique, and I think it would be a
shame to give it up.
Cheers,
Pillsy
[...]
In article <························@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
···········@gmail.com" <··········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why is this bad? Commerical lisps are too expensive and suck anyway
> (from what I hear.)
Ah, hearsay. Good base for an opinion.
> One example is Lispworks's IDE, which doesn't
> follow Apple human interface guidelines.
That was never its goal. But then it looks more Mac-like than
a lot of other apps.
> Another is that none of its
> OpenGL demos seem to work.
Worked for me.
> (Not to mention the built-in time limit in
> the free edition.) I haven't tried all the other commercial lisps, but
> some of them don't even have IDEs!
Shocking!
>
> > > * write more good documentation (Peter Seibel's Practical Common Lisp
> > > doesn't cover graphics or desktop apps, among other things)
> >
> > Whose GUI system are we talking about anyway, Allegro, Lispworks, win32
> > or something else? GUI is not common/standardized
>
> Native GUIs are best - trying to tie them together in a single
> framework encourages ugly apps that are anti-user in nature (good apps
> follow local UI guidelines.) So why not write separate docs for the
> major systems out there, like Cocoa, WPF/XAML, Win32, GTK+ and QT?
>
> >
> > > * improve the libraries of a single free lisp implementation across at
> > > least three popular platforms (OS X, Windows, Linux) - paying special
> > > attention to removing unnecessary dependencies (X should never be
> > > required except on Linux or the BSDs, but frequently it's a dependency
> > > for doing graphics on OS X or Windows), and easy installation
> > > (everything possible should be included in the initial download, from
> > > OpenGL to support for history in the REPL)
> >
> > Now you are striping off all of the other free implamentations.
>
> So what? Assuming enough money came in, there'd be no problem with
> paying people to maintain forks.
>
> > > * build and maintain nice, separate IDEs for each platform that follow
> > > the human interface guidelines of the native platform
> >
> > umm emacs? Personally I prefer to have the same interface across platforms
> > so I only have to keep one set of what is right and proper in my head.
>
> Lots of people like emacs, and that's fine. But many people that are
> new to lisp are used to graphical IDEs like VS and Xcode, and won't
> bother learning lisp if it means having to work without what they're
> used to (jumping into lisp itself is a big enough leap).
>
> You might prefer a single interface across platforms, but most users
> don't.
Probably you have data from asking developers?
> I have never seen a single successful attempt at a cross-
> platform GUI, ever (meaning one that completely fooled me into
> thinking that there's nothing fishy about the app.)
Could be. Fact is that most widely used IDEs are cross-platform:
LispWorks, Allegro CL, Squeak, Borland's Tools, Eclipse,
Netweaver, Emacs, IntelliJ. Apple's IDEs are not cross-platform
(XCode, Dashcode, Quartz Composer, Interface Builder, ...).
But I'm not sure XCode is our dream IDE either. Well,
and then there is Microsoft's stuff. Also not overwhelming.
>
> > Also you are confusing firefox, a product *in* the web browser space, vs
> > Common Lisp, a space with multiple products *in* it.
>
> I was trying to be abstract/impartial, but I really meant OpenMCL (I
> just can't run it yet because I don't have a 64-bit Mac.)
OpenMCL runs on 32bit PPC Macs.
>
> > I do not see how this would be workable or good, on the bright side I have
> > been wrong many times in my life.
> >
> > marc
> > --
> > ······@sdf.lonestar.org
> > SDF Public Access UNIX System -http://sdf.lonestar.org
--
http://lispm.dyndns.org
> > One example is Lispworks's IDE, which doesn't
> > follow Apple human interface guidelines.
>
> That was never its goal. But then it looks more Mac-like than
> a lot of other apps.
Michael Jackson isn't (biologically speaking) a woman, but then again,
he's a lot more woman-like than a lot of other people.
> > (Not to mention the built-in time limit in
> > the free edition.) I haven't tried all the other commercial lisps, but
> > some of them don't even have IDEs!
>
> Shocking!
In this day and age, it is shocking! This is one of the many examples
of "If lisp is so great, why doesn't it have <x>?" that turn so many
of us away. Why would anyone bother with lisp if on one hand they're
told "don't worry about the parenthesis - a good editor will take care
of that" and the only editor they can really use is emacs?
> > You might prefer a single interface across platforms, but most users
> > don't.
>
> Probably you have data from asking developers?
Hackers/developers are also users, too. Why are so many switching to
OS X, where such value is placed on the Mac UI?
> > I was trying to be abstract/impartial, but I really meant OpenMCL (I
> > just can't run it yet because I don't have a 64-bit Mac.)
>
> OpenMCL runs on 32bit PPC Macs.
Yes, but I have a 32-bit Intel Mac. And lots of other people have
them, too (a million machines, at least.) It won't be that long before
this isn't important (about five years), but it still sucks.
You're making a number of statements that are simply trying to
axiomatise assumptions that might not be true at all. I took the liberty
of reformulating what you have said in the way I understand what you
actually wanted to say (note that other people might interpret it in a
different way, of course):
> Michael Jackson isn't (biologically speaking) a woman, but then again,
> he's a lot more woman-like than a lot of other people.
"Michael Jackson uses excentrically styled clothes and make-up,
therefore he must wish to be a woman because as we all know, only women
style themselves like that."
> In this day and age, it is shocking! This is one of the many examples
> of "If lisp is so great, why doesn't it have <x>?" that turn so many
> of us away. Why would anyone bother with lisp if on one hand they're
> told "don't worry about the parenthesis - a good editor will take care
> of that" and the only editor they can really use is emacs?
"The Lisp programming language can't be any useful because if it were,
people would have written IDEs for free. It is a falsehood that people
are actually able to do work with the stuff they already have and nobody
prefers a text editor over an IDE anyway."
> Hackers/developers are also users, too. Why are so many switching to
> OS X, where such value is placed on the Mac UI?
"The majority of `hackers/developers' are switching over to MacOS X
because they have seen that it is a system that is far superior to
anything else. It is also the case that hackers/developers secretly want
to use a cool UI like MacOS X but they are too elite to admit that in
public."
None of these statements is true, imho.
On Aug 12, 4:42 pm, Matthias Buelow <····@incubus.de> wrote:
> You're making a number of statements that are simply trying to
> axiomatise assumptions that might not be true at all. I took the liberty
> of reformulating what you have said in the way I understand what you
> actually wanted to say (note that other people might interpret it in a
> different way, of course):
You can take the liberty of sucking my balls, you pedantic fool.
> "Michael Jackson uses excentrically styled clothes and make-up,
> therefore he must wish to be a woman because as we all know, only women
> style themselves like that."
Nope. "Lispworks IDE is such a joke that it's comparable to /Michael
Jackson/, for chrissakes."
> > In this day and age, it is shocking! This is one of the many examples
> > of "If lisp is so great, why doesn't it have <x>?" that turn so many
> > of us away. Why would anyone bother with lisp if on one hand they're
> > told "don't worry about the parenthesis - a good editor will take care
> > of that" and the only editor they can really use is emacs?
>
> "The Lisp programming language can't be any useful because if it were,
> people would have written IDEs for free. It is a falsehood that people
> are actually able to do work with the stuff they already have and nobody
> prefers a text editor over an IDE anyway."
The point of the entire thread is to find some way to fund the
development of such improvements for the rest of us, so that the lisp
community grows (can you see the benefit in that?)
> > Hackers/developers are also users, too. Why are so many switching to
> > OS X, where such value is placed on the Mac UI?
>
> "The majority of `hackers/developers' are switching over to MacOS X
> because they have seen that it is a system that is far superior to
> anything else.
http://www.paulgraham.com/mac.html
> It is also the case that hackers/developers secretly want
> to use a cool UI like MacOS X but they are too elite to admit that in
> public."
UIs aren't about being cool as much as they are about being /usable/.
And I don't think the people we're talking about are "too elite to
admit" anything in public.
···········@gmail.com" <··········@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Nope. "Lispworks IDE is such a joke that it's comparable to /Michael
> Jackson/, for chrissakes."
Why? It's very useful and it works on at leat three systems I've
used. So what more should I ask for?
>
>> > In this day and age, it is shocking! This is one of the many examples
>> > of "If lisp is so great, why doesn't it have <x>?" that turn so many
>> > of us away. Why would anyone bother with lisp if on one hand they're
>> > told "don't worry about the parenthesis - a good editor will take care
>> > of that" and the only editor they can really use is emacs?
Then I have to ask, what's wrong with Emacs. I find it very useful and
use it for my all-day work. And I hardly can say I regret it. I wished
a few things were different but they do not bother me that much. And
guess what I "just" have to learn (X)Emacs and can use it again and
again and again....
>>
>> "The Lisp programming language can't be any useful because if it were,
>> people would have written IDEs for free. It is a falsehood that people
>> are actually able to do work with the stuff they already have and nobody
>> prefers a text editor over an IDE anyway."
Well I'd argue there is not much which really works on the end as IDE,
they all are lacking something...
Regards
Friedrich
--
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.
On 12 Aug, 18:40, ··········@gmail.com wrote:
> Does anything like the Mozilla foundation exist in the lisp world?
>
> I've heard that the Mozilla foundation gets most of their money from
> Google through the search thing embedded in Firefox.
>
> On the face of it, doing the same with lisp seems much harder (web
> browsers have hundreds of millions of users), but what about banner
> ads and donations?
>
> Such an organization could provide funding to people that would:
>
> * improve free implementations (porting OpenMCL to 32-bit x86
> machines, for example)
> * write more good documentation (Peter Seibel's Practical Common Lisp
> doesn't cover graphics or desktop apps, among other things)
> * improve the libraries of a single free lisp implementation across at
> least three popular platforms (OS X, Windows, Linux) - paying special
> attention to removing unnecessary dependencies (X should never be
> required except on Linux or the BSDs, but frequently it's a dependency
> for doing graphics on OS X or Windows), and easy installation
> (everything possible should be included in the initial download, from
> OpenGL to support for history in the REPL)
> * build and maintain nice, separate IDEs for each platform that follow
> the human interface guidelines of the native platform
This post contains some very valid points. There is a genuine problem
in funding some of the open source work that gets done and Lisp is
just one area. Lisp has some problems specific to it though. In no
particular order, here are the problems of securing funding as I see
them.
1. Small companies. The main Lisp vendors have nowhere near the
clout of Sun, Microsoft, IBM or HP. They operate with small
professional teams who are highly paid to retain them. They don't
have that much spare cash to plough back into boosting open source
developers.
2. Small user base. Lisp is not Google and Lisp sites don't get
enough traffic for advertising to pay off in a big way.
3. Donations do not work. Sorry, but this is a fact of
existence. People don't make donations to support developers. I
asked the SWI Prolog people how much they
pulled in donations from their immensely popular Prolog. The answer
was a figure so low that you could do better doing yard work. People
are now habituated to getting stuff for free.
4. A cruddy model of government funding. Its a fact that
open source has now been around a long time, BUT still govt. funding
is tied to traditional research institutions and that often means
universities. Actually universities are NOT cost efficient (about 50%
of staff costs are charged as 'overheads' or backhanders to the
bursary) BUT still they command exclusive rights over vast resources.
Try getting hold of EPSRC money without university connections. The
purse holders have not moved with the times and there are vested
interests making sure that they stay where they are.
5. False and erroneous ideas derived from the Linux bubble. Linus
Torvalds and to a lesser degree RMS give the impression that open
source model is a universally viable commercial model. The idea is
that the software is free but the developer cashes in by offering
services supporting and enhacking (hacking to enhance) the product.
It worked for Linux during the dot com boom when money was easy. It
worked because Linux was a pile of crap (and is still ropey in my
view) and people who bought into it found it easier to pay someone to
hold their hands than to spend their time with a manual.
Nowadays we have higher expectations of software and standards have
improved to the extent that we don't tolerate having to pay somebody
to help us through a buggy and poorly documented system. If its naff,
we junk it and look elsewhere.
A lot of the reason that open-source has this 'go-stop' aspect to its
projects (and so much lies abandoned) is due to the lack of a viable
financial model to secure proper funding. There's no real substitute
for a close professional team of talented developers. Its no accident
that one of our best Lisp compilers is probably CMU which is 20 years
old and was put together by just such a team on govt. money.
Mark
I have an idea how improve things in the lisp world, though I'm very
skeptical how well it could work, but maybe, just maybe it could be
inspiration for something that will help the lisp community to
prosper.
At first my very simple and probably inaccurate view of the open
source funding.
The open source model works sometimes even with very few money like
when people share common problem and develop solution together ,
something like Apache & FreeBSD project (as per my knowledge FreeBSD
foundations gets only 250 000 a year which is silly considering the
size of the project), for the rest of the projects you need a wealthy
sponsors and/or be very popular so you could count on donations or
ads. The rest of the open source world survive from
consultancy and dual licensing, mysql is the best example. Of course
there are people doing open source as hobby, who get support from
their day jobs.
Lisp doesn't stand very well in terms of popularity so money from ads
and donations are minor, therw is no wealthy corporate or government
sponsor, nor horde of programmers so clusters of people who work in
the same field will form. All of the above popularity, sponsorship and
horde of programmers are intermingled, in order to gain programmers
lisp needs a lot of high quality libraries, to gain a lot of high
quality libraries we need sponsors, to gain sponsors we need to be
popular and to be popular lisp needs programmers, so we're trapped in
a vicious cycle of poverty and don't know how to break it.
Maybe this could help. Create an foundation, let's call it Alexandria
for now, that will held lisp libraries that their authors wanted to
deposit under foundation library.
Create the organization license, let's call it Alexandria license,
with terms as per below:
1. The usual no warranty staffs & disclaimers perhaps from the boost
license
2. The code taken from the foundation code base can't be relicensed
Only the author/copyright holder of the specific library could do that
but the copy already deposited stays under Alexandria license for
good.
3.. The code deposited can't be withdrawn.
4. You could use the deposited library under one of the below terms:
a Free of charge if you deposit all the code from the project that
uses Alexandria library in the Alexandria foundation ( GNU viral
effect enabling code base to grow)
b. You could pay a certain fee to the foundation so you will only have
to open the code from the functionality that is already implemented
(like LLGPL, so implemented functionality will grow in quality) plus
user could donate additional functionality if he wants that.
c. Make another deal with the author/copyright holder of the library
deposited. Author /copyright could offer different terms for the code
he holds copyright.
The problems with my idea are :
1. Find someone(s) who will establish & take care of the foundation
2. Finding athors to deposit libraries.
3. What kind of fees to ask for? One fee to use all the libraries?
Separate fee for each library? Or combination of both? How much to
charge for the use and who will decide the price author or foundation?
4. How to split the revenues?
The questions are many and someone have to solve to make this work. Or
find out different model.
Is there anybody interested to put words into practice ?
Kind regards
Bobi
On 20 ao�t, 17:10, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I have an idea how improve things in the lisp world, though I'm very
> skeptical how well it could work, but maybe, just maybe it could be
> inspiration for something that will help the lisp community to
> prosper.
> At first my very simple and probably inaccurate view of the open
> source funding.
> The open source model works sometimes even with very few money like
> when people share common problem and develop solution together ,
> something like Apache & FreeBSD project (as per my knowledge FreeBSD
> foundations gets only 250 000 a year which is silly considering the
> size of the project), for the rest of the projects you need a wealthy
> sponsors and/or be very popular so you could count on donations or
> ads. The rest of the open source world survive from
> consultancy and dual licensing, mysql is the best example. Of course
> there are people doing open source as hobby, who get support from
> their day jobs.
> Lisp doesn't stand very well in terms of popularity so money from ads
> and donations are minor, therw is no wealthy corporate or government
> sponsor, nor horde of programmers so clusters of people who work in
> the same field will form. All of the above popularity, sponsorship and
> horde of programmers are intermingled, in order to gain programmers
> lisp needs a lot of high quality libraries, to gain a lot of high
> quality libraries we need sponsors, to gain sponsors we need to be
> popular and to be popular lisp needs programmers, so we're trapped in
> a vicious cycle of poverty and don't know how to break it.
> Maybe this could help. Create an foundation, let's call it Alexandria
> for now, that will held lisp libraries that their authors wanted to
> deposit under foundation library.
> Create the organization license, let's call it Alexandria license,
> with terms as per below:
> 1. The usual no warranty staffs & disclaimers perhaps from the boost
> license
> 2. The code taken from the foundation code base can't be relicensed
> Only the author/copyright holder of the specific library could do that
> but the copy already deposited stays under Alexandria license for
> good.
> 3.. The code deposited can't be withdrawn.
> 4. You could use the deposited library under one of the below terms:
> a Free of charge if you deposit all the code from the project that
> uses Alexandria library in the Alexandria foundation ( GNU viral
> effect enabling code base to grow)
> b. You could pay a certain fee to the foundation so you will only have
> to open the code from the functionality that is already implemented
> (like LLGPL, so implemented functionality will grow in quality) plus
> user could donate additional functionality if he wants that.
> c. Make another deal with the author/copyright holder of the library
> deposited. Author /copyright could offer different terms for the code
> he holds copyright.
>
> The problems with my idea are :
> 1. Find someone(s) who will establish & take care of the foundation
> 2. Finding athors to deposit libraries.
> 3. What kind of fees to ask for? One fee to use all the libraries?
> Separate fee for each library? Or combination of both? How much to
> charge for the use and who will decide the price author or foundation?
> 4. How to split the revenues?
>
> The questions are many and someone have to solve to make this work. Or
> find out different model.
> Is there anybody interested to put words into practice ?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Bobi
Hello,
Perhaps it's a good idea, but bad example.
Without IBM, Apache never had the resources for growing.
I have a doubt that IBM or SUN sponsor a Lisp foundation at this time.
Christophe
On Aug 22, 10:17 am, Christophe
<····················@birdtechnology.net> wrote:
> On 20 ao�t, 17:10, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have an idea how improve things in the lisp world, though I'm very
> > skeptical how well it could work, but maybe, just maybe it could be
> > inspiration for something that will help the lisp community to
> > prosper.
> > At first my very simple and probably inaccurate view of the open
> > source funding.
> > The open source model works sometimes even with very few money like
> > when people share common problem and develop solution together ,
> > something like Apache & FreeBSD project (as per my knowledge FreeBSD
> > foundations gets only 250 000 a year which is silly considering the
> > size of the project), for the rest of the projects you need a wealthy
> > sponsors and/or be very popular so you could count on donations or
> > ads. The rest of the open source world survive from
> > consultancy and dual licensing, mysql is the best example. Of course
> > there are people doing open source as hobby, who get support from
> > their day jobs.
> > Lisp doesn't stand very well in terms of popularity so money from ads
> > and donations are minor, therw is no wealthy corporate or government
> > sponsor, nor horde of programmers so clusters of people who work in
> > the same field will form. All of the above popularity, sponsorship and
> > horde of programmers are intermingled, in order to gain programmers
> > lisp needs a lot of high quality libraries, to gain a lot of high
> > quality libraries we need sponsors, to gain sponsors we need to be
> > popular and to be popular lisp needs programmers, so we're trapped in
> > a vicious cycle of poverty and don't know how to break it.
> > Maybe this could help. Create an foundation, let's call it Alexandria
> > for now, that will held lisp libraries that their authors wanted to
> > deposit under foundation library.
> > Create the organization license, let's call it Alexandria license,
> > with terms as per below:
> > 1. The usual no warranty staffs & disclaimers perhaps from the boost
> > license
> > 2. The code taken from the foundation code base can't be relicensed
> > Only the author/copyright holder of the specific library could do that
> > but the copy already deposited stays under Alexandria license for
> > good.
> > 3.. The code deposited can't be withdrawn.
> > 4. You could use the deposited library under one of the below terms:
> > a Free of charge if you deposit all the code from the project that
> > uses Alexandria library in the Alexandria foundation ( GNU viral
> > effect enabling code base to grow)
> > b. You could pay a certain fee to the foundation so you will only have
> > to open the code from the functionality that is already implemented
> > (like LLGPL, so implemented functionality will grow in quality) plus
> > user could donate additional functionality if he wants that.
> > c. Make another deal with the author/copyright holder of the library
> > deposited. Author /copyright could offer different terms for the code
> > he holds copyright.
>
> > The problems with my idea are :
> > 1. Find someone(s) who will establish & take care of the foundation
> > 2. Finding athors to deposit libraries.
> > 3. What kind of fees to ask for? One fee to use all the libraries?
> > Separate fee for each library? Or combination of both? How much to
> > charge for the use and who will decide the price author or foundation?
> > 4. How to split the revenues?
>
> > The questions are many and someone have to solve to make this work. Or
> > find out different model.
> > Is there anybody interested to put words into practice ?
>
> > Kind regards
>
> > Bobi
>
> Hello,
>
> Perhaps it's a good idea, but bad example.
> Without IBM, Apache never had the resources for growing.
>
> I have a doubt that IBM or SUN sponsor a Lisp foundation at this time.
>
> Christophe- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not sure even that it is a good idea, but anyway there's nobody
interested in trying so we should do with what we can do, and one of
those things are to produce libraries thus avoid being the language
that only some weird freaks without any touch with reality use it .
http://www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/discussion.html/ref=cm_rdp_st_rd/103-4459804-3397437?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0262610744&store=yourstore&cdThread=Tx36ME5U4CWZ1FF&reviewID=R32I8W12IC5501&displayType=ReviewDetail
Maybe if someone could figure out how to create a Weitz virus,
Rosenberg, Caekenberghe, King & simigliar mutations are highly
wellcome. Or maybe just preventing lispers from getting ill from the
whiner syndrom ( a.k.a Erann Gatt syndrom) would turn the tables.
Perhaps. Just perhaps.
The best the little guy can do is what
the little guy does right
http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#41
On 22 ao�t, 14:11, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 22, 10:17 am, Christophe
>
>
>
>
>
> <····················@birdtechnology.net> wrote:
> > On 20 ao�t, 17:10, Slobodan Blazeski <·················@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I have an idea how improve things in the lisp world, though I'm very
> > > skeptical how well it could work, but maybe, just maybe it could be
> > > inspiration for something that will help the lisp community to
> > > prosper.
> > > At first my very simple and probably inaccurate view of the open
> > > source funding.
> > > The open source model works sometimes even with very few money like
> > > when people share common problem and develop solution together ,
> > > something like Apache & FreeBSD project (as per my knowledge FreeBSD
> > > foundations gets only 250 000 a year which is silly considering the
> > > size of the project), for the rest of the projects you need a wealthy
> > > sponsors and/or be very popular so you could count on donations or
> > > ads. The rest of the open source world survive from
> > > consultancy and dual licensing, mysql is the best example. Of course
> > > there are people doing open source as hobby, who get support from
> > > their day jobs.
> > > Lisp doesn't stand very well in terms of popularity so money from ads
> > > and donations are minor, therw is no wealthy corporate or government
> > > sponsor, nor horde of programmers so clusters of people who work in
> > > the same field will form. All of the above popularity, sponsorship and
> > > horde of programmers are intermingled, in order to gain programmers
> > > lisp needs a lot of high quality libraries, to gain a lot of high
> > > quality libraries we need sponsors, to gain sponsors we need to be
> > > popular and to be popular lisp needs programmers, so we're trapped in
> > > a vicious cycle of poverty and don't know how to break it.
> > > Maybe this could help. Create an foundation, let's call it Alexandria
> > > for now, that will held lisp libraries that their authors wanted to
> > > deposit under foundation library.
> > > Create the organization license, let's call it Alexandria license,
> > > with terms as per below:
> > > 1. The usual no warranty staffs & disclaimers perhaps from the boost
> > > license
> > > 2. The code taken from the foundation code base can't be relicensed
> > > Only the author/copyright holder of the specific library could do that
> > > but the copy already deposited stays under Alexandria license for
> > > good.
> > > 3.. The code deposited can't be withdrawn.
> > > 4. You could use the deposited library under one of the below terms:
> > > a Free of charge if you deposit all the code from the project that
> > > uses Alexandria library in the Alexandria foundation ( GNU viral
> > > effect enabling code base to grow)
> > > b. You could pay a certain fee to the foundation so you will only have
> > > to open the code from the functionality that is already implemented
> > > (like LLGPL, so implemented functionality will grow in quality) plus
> > > user could donate additional functionality if he wants that.
> > > c. Make another deal with the author/copyright holder of the library
> > > deposited. Author /copyright could offer different terms for the code
> > > he holds copyright.
>
> > > The problems with my idea are :
> > > 1. Find someone(s) who will establish & take care of the foundation
> > > 2. Finding athors to deposit libraries.
> > > 3. What kind of fees to ask for? One fee to use all the libraries?
> > > Separate fee for each library? Or combination of both? How much to
> > > charge for the use and who will decide the price author or foundation?
> > > 4. How to split the revenues?
>
> > > The questions are many and someone have to solve to make this work. Or
> > > find out different model.
> > > Is there anybody interested to put words into practice ?
>
> > > Kind regards
>
> > > Bobi
>
> > Hello,
>
> > Perhaps it's a good idea, but bad example.
> > Without IBM, Apache never had the resources for growing.
>
> > I have a doubt that IBM or SUN sponsor a Lisp foundation at this time.
>
> > Christophe- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I'm not sure even that it is a good idea, but anyway there's nobody
> interested in trying so we should do with what we can do, and one of
> those things are to produce libraries thus avoid being the language
> that only some weird freaks without any touch with reality use it .http://www.amazon.com/gp/discussionboard/discussion.html/ref=cm_rdp_s...
> Maybe if someone could figure out how to create a Weitz virus,
> Rosenberg, Caekenberghe, King & simigliar mutations are highly
> wellcome. Or maybe just preventing lispers from getting ill from the
> whiner syndrom ( a.k.a Erann Gatt syndrom) would turn the tables.
> Perhaps. Just perhaps.
>
> The best the little guy can do is what
> the little guy does righthttp://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#41- Masquer le texte des messages pr�c�dents -
>
> - Afficher le texte des messages pr�c�dents -
At this time, the most advanced Lisp is Allegro CL. Lispwork is also a
good candidate.
I prefer used my time to create anything with it or for it, rather
that tried to create or improve SBCL, for example.
About libraries, http://common-lisp.net/ is a very good work.
And the website : http://www.cl-user.net is also a very good work.
About the "Erann Gatt syndrom", the problem is developer level in
Computer Sciences, not Lisp. Cf. : http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/decline.htm
Regards,
Christophe