Hi all,
The general consensus seems to be that, barring an unexpected move by
ANSI, the Lisp spec's copyright is intractably lost. Too many may
could claim ownership, but nobody in a position to clarify things
seems to care.
The next best thing, CLtL2, seems to have a cleaner heritage.
Before I go bothering Guy Steele himself, does anyone around here know
what CLtL2's status is? Like the ANSI draft, there's public sources,
an HTML version, etc... and no obvious license agreement (save the
restrictions added to the CLHS). Unlike ANSI, it should only take a
small number of people to set that straight...
Kent Pitman? Daniel Weinreib? You frequent this list; your names
appear on the front cover; do you have any comments or insight?
I'm not looking for commercial rights, merely to freely distribute
derivative works. For now, I've modernized the LaTex and generated a
hyperlinked pdf (with index). Later it might be fun if anyone could
note changes between CLtL2 and ANSI, interweave personal comments or
example code, highlight different implementation's interpretations,
add new sections, etc.
Thanks,
Daniel
> I'm not looking for commercial rights, merely to freely distribute
> derivative works. For now, I've modernized the LaTex and generated a
> hyperlinked pdf (with index).
How I would like to see that pdf.
Law in Spain as in many other countries is permissive if you don't
take commercial profit,
but I fear you will have to disturb Dr. Steele to clear things up,
since he has got the final word.
On Apr 29, 2:29 am, D Herring <········@at.tentpost.dot.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The general consensus seems to be that, barring an unexpected move by
> ANSI, the Lisp spec's copyright is intractably lost. Too many may
> could claim ownership, but nobody in a position to clarify things
> seems to care.
That's rather strange...
>
> The next best thing, CLtL2, seems to have a cleaner heritage.
>
> Before I go bothering Guy Steele himself, does anyone around here know
> what CLtL2's status is? Like the ANSI draft, there's public sources,
> an HTML version, etc... and no obvious license agreement (save the
> restrictions added to the CLHS). Unlike ANSI, it should only take a
> small number of people to set that straight...
>
> Kent Pitman? Daniel Weinreib? You frequent this list; your names
> appear on the front cover; do you have any comments or insight?
This is a legal question involving intellectual property rights.
In the United States, at least, I have learned that these issues
can be complicated, and the only people who truly know are lawyers
who specialize in intellectual property.
However, I don't think there's any reason not to ask Guy Steele.
He would know whom to ask (probably at the publisher).
-- Dan
>
> I'm not looking for commercial rights, merely to freely distribute
> derivative works. For now, I've modernized the LaTex and generated a
> hyperlinked pdf (with index). Later it might be fun if anyone could
> note changes between CLtL2 and ANSI, interweave personal comments or
> example code, highlight different implementation's interpretations,
> add new sections, etc.
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:29:22 -0400, D Herring <········@at.tentpost.dot.com> wrote:
> Later it might be fun if anyone could note changes between CLtL2 and
> ANSI, interweave personal comments or example code, highlight
> different implementation's interpretations, add new sections, etc.
This might be a good starting point once the legal aspects are
resolved:
http://bc.tech.coop/cltl2-ansi.htm
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
D Herring <········@at.tentpost.dot.com> writes:
> The general consensus seems to be that, barring an unexpected move by
> ANSI, the Lisp spec's copyright is intractably lost.
I generally do not speak about this matter on comp.lang.lisp because
it is not a good forum for coherent discussion. Even just this
problem statement is full of vague wording and confusion.
> Too many may could claim ownership, but nobody in a position to
> clarify things seems to care.
This is simply not so. I care a great deal about this matter. And I
don't doubt that others do. But speaking on the matter requires a great
deal of clarity to avoid a dangerous misstatement of various kinds, and
while I'm willing to shoot from the hip about language semantics, I'm a
lot more conservative about what I'm willing to say in a casual forum.
> The next best thing, CLtL2, seems to have a cleaner heritage.
As a matter of intellectual property ownership, perhaps. But it
doesn't match the CL spec in semantics. So the question becomes: why
do you need such a thing in the first place? What would it accomplish
to acquire, even if Steele were to offer it, rights to someone's
personal description of a language that isn't even the one you could
use. If you want a description of the language as it is, why not just
use the description there is? If you want to make a new language, why
not write your own spec that is more coherent still? I can better
understand the notion of wanting to start with a spec that's
conforming and to annotate it than I can understand this. And for
that, people usually start with the TeX spec of dpANS3R, although I
won't publicly (without a great deal of additional prep) comment on
the legality.
> Before I go bothering Guy Steele himself, does anyone around here know
> what CLtL2's status is?
It's a published book with a copyright page. It is not a committee
product. It's Steele's private endeavor. See its second edition
preface (I think something like page xiv, though I'm working from
memory on that, so I might be off).
> Like the ANSI draft, there's public sources,
> an HTML version, etc... and no obvious license agreement (save the
> restrictions added to the CLHS). Unlike ANSI, it should only take a
> small number of people to set that straight...
It depends on what your goal is.
But, btw, because of the complex nature of the task, I do wish people
would avoid vagueries like "set that straight" and use formal
terminology like "obtain permission to make derivative works of <x>".
There are two aspects to this question, one of which I have no problem
with and the other of which I don't have much interest in but have no
reason to preclude.
I think it's fine for someone to ask questions about the legal status
of these, though I think as a practical matter it's hard to find
answers to some such questions. I think it's fine for people to make
new works based on old ones, but they need to base those works on a
legal foundation they're comfortable with, and I don't see it as my job
to act as legal counsel in advising them what they can and can't do.
On the matter of what should be done, though, I think that's
different. It's good for people to experiment, but I don't endorse
every experiment. I encourage experiments like Paul Graham's Arc, but
at this particular time it's hasn't sparked any personal interest in
me and I'm not out there rallying for it. I'm not on a quest against
it. It just hasn't grabbed me, and I don't feel obliged to support it
at this time. But I totally think that a marketplace of ideas is
good. Yet, if he came out saying "Everyone should rally around my
language because we need a replacement for CL", I'd be in a bind,
because it mixes two ideas: "there need to be a way to do something
different" and "i think my way is the right way".
I happen not to think that working from CLTL2 is a very good idea.
But that's for personal reasons related to me and is not a religious
position. I have opinions about and preferences for this or that Lisp
book, but that doesn't mean you should necessarily agree with me.
So I think it's fine to ask these questions, but I don't really
personally think an annotated CLTL2 will do anything but confuse the
market, even annotated. CLTL2 is _already_ annotated over CLTL, and
that _already_ confused the market. Reading about the language as
diffs is not the answer. I personally would not start with CLTL2.
> Kent Pitman? Daniel Weinreib? You frequent this list; your names
> appear on the front cover; do you have any comments or insight?
I'm on the cover because I gave Steele permission to use the text of my
conditions proposal as a chapter.
I do have many other comments, but not that I'm prepared to make
off-the-cuff in this forum other than what I've said above. It's just
too hard to make casual statements on certain topics when I might be
quoted on for all eternity. One cannot speak one's hopes without
having someone quote you as "you promised..." later. One cannot speak
one's fears or concerns without being vilified. And I'm just not up
to all that risk when this is not a cause I'm not personally pushing
and I'm doing it as a favor. This is simply not a good brainstorming
forum for all purposes. In another forum, I might say more.
I'd suggested that I might be willing to prepare a talk on this for a
Lisp conference, since I could then see a bunch of people in person
and have the opportunity to discuss the issues and so there would be
some upside to me. And, at least then, I'd have motivation to do the
necessary prep. But the nearest one is a ways off, and that might not
suit your timeline. No, I'm not really looking to do it at one of
those monthly local user group meetings held in this or that town,
since the interactive community those present are just the local
people of one area, and there's still all the risk of being quoted and
misquoted with none of the benefit.
I think this is an issue that matters, but that's why I prefer not to do
it in a haphazard way.
Kent M Pitman wrote:
> D Herring <········@at.tentpost.dot.com> writes:
>
>> The general consensus seems to be that, barring an unexpected move by
>> ANSI, the Lisp spec's copyright is intractably lost.
>
> I generally do not speak about this matter on comp.lang.lisp because
> it is not a good forum for coherent discussion. Even just this
> problem statement is full of vague wording and confusion.
:) It was very late when I wrote that post.
>> Too many may could claim ownership, but nobody in a position to
>> clarify things seems to care.
>
> This is simply not so. I care a great deal about this matter. And I
> don't doubt that others do. But speaking on the matter requires a great
> deal of clarity to avoid a dangerous misstatement of various kinds, and
> while I'm willing to shoot from the hip about language semantics, I'm a
> lot more conservative about what I'm willing to say in a casual forum.
While many people such as yourself obviously do care, history bears
witness that you don't have the power to fix this situation. That's
not a judgment, just an observation.
>> The next best thing, CLtL2, seems to have a cleaner heritage.
>
> As a matter of intellectual property ownership, perhaps. But it
> doesn't match the CL spec in semantics. So the question becomes: why
> do you need such a thing in the first place? What would it accomplish
> to acquire, even if Steele were to offer it, rights to someone's
> personal description of a language that isn't even the one you could
> use. If you want a description of the language as it is, why not just
> use the description there is? If you want to make a new language, why
> not write your own spec that is more coherent still? I can better
> understand the notion of wanting to start with a spec that's
> conforming and to annotate it than I can understand this. And for
> that, people usually start with the TeX spec of dpANS3R, although I
> won't publicly (without a great deal of additional prep) comment on
> the legality.
Last summer, I spent several days modifying the dpANS sources to use
modern LaTeX notation (e.g. \newcommand instead of \def) and compile
with hyperrefs under pdflatex. I made considerable progress, but
eventually stopped after realizing it would be foolish for me to
release this work publicly.
Common Lisp needs a publicly-modifiable specification for many
reasons, of which here are a few examples.
- Paraphrasing Guy Steele's 1998 OOPSLA keynote, languages must grow
over time. CL is like a potted plant that became root-bound years ago.
- While relatively few, the ANSI spec does have flaws.
http://www.cliki.net/Proposed%20ANSI%20Revisions%20and%20Clarifications
- Core details such as multithreading are not addressed by the
specification.
http://www.cliki.net/Proposed%20Extensions%20To%20ANSI
http://cdr.eurolisp.org/
- Media formats change over time. CLHS is great for what it is, but
it is not the best format for reading the spec cover-to-cover. And it
was written before MathML allowed proper embedding of equations.
ANSI's pdf is a sad joke. Where can one legally obtain a quality,
freshly printed copy? A bookmarked/hyperlinked PDF? Something
embedded in an IDE as a tag cloud? Something suitable for ebook readers?
- The annotated XML spec is a wonderful resource. Other languages
have similar docs; why can't Lisp?
- R6RS
In short, it would be best if dpANS were in the public domain; but
many don't think it will ever be[1], and nobody (myself included) is
willing to prove them wrong by testing the waters. CLtL2 provided a
useful foundation for dpANS, and it could do the same for a new
specification. As Edi pointed out, there are already lists of
differences between the two. We don't need a carbon copy; we just
need something substantially the same to provide fertile ground.
[1] http://wiki.alu.org/Project_FreeSpec
>> Before I go bothering Guy Steele himself, does anyone around here know
>> what CLtL2's status is?
>
> It's a published book with a copyright page. It is not a committee
> product. It's Steele's private endeavor. See its second edition
> preface (I think something like page xiv, though I'm working from
> memory on that, so I might be off).
That was my understanding as well; I was just checking that I hadn't
missed something obvious. I've gone ahead and contacted Steele; we'll
see what he says.
> On the matter of what should be done, though, I think that's
> different. It's good for people to experiment, but I don't endorse
> every experiment. I encourage experiments like Paul Graham's Arc, but
> at this particular time it's hasn't sparked any personal interest in
> me and I'm not out there rallying for it. I'm not on a quest against
> it. It just hasn't grabbed me, and I don't feel obliged to support it
> at this time. But I totally think that a marketplace of ideas is
> good. Yet, if he came out saying "Everyone should rally around my
> language because we need a replacement for CL", I'd be in a bind,
> because it mixes two ideas: "there need to be a way to do something
> different" and "i think my way is the right way".
I don't want to create a new language. CL is a good language and it
embodies much expert experience. But it needs some way to adapt, some
means of ownership for new generations.
> I happen not to think that working from CLTL2 is a very good idea.
> But that's for personal reasons related to me and is not a religious
> position. I have opinions about and preferences for this or that Lisp
> book, but that doesn't mean you should necessarily agree with me.
>
> So I think it's fine to ask these questions, but I don't really
> personally think an annotated CLTL2 will do anything but confuse the
> market, even annotated. CLTL2 is _already_ annotated over CLTL, and
> that _already_ confused the market. Reading about the language as
> diffs is not the answer. I personally would not start with CLTL2.
If CLtL2 were edited to elide the diffs and to provide a cohesive
story.?. What would you recommend as starting point? I'm looking for
a (not necessarily authoritative) specification that can be publicly
studied and modified.
>> Kent Pitman? Daniel Weinreb? You frequent this list; your names
>> appear on the front cover; do you have any comments or insight?
>
> I'm on the cover because I gave Steele permission to use the text of my
> conditions proposal as a chapter.
And its a chapter I wish Stroustrup would have read more carefully.
> I do have many other comments, but not that I'm prepared to make
> off-the-cuff in this forum other than what I've said above. It's just
> too hard to make casual statements on certain topics when I might be
> quoted on for all eternity. One cannot speak one's hopes without
> having someone quote you as "you promised..." later. One cannot speak
> one's fears or concerns without being vilified. And I'm just not up
> to all that risk when this is not a cause I'm not personally pushing
> and I'm doing it as a favor. This is simply not a good brainstorming
> forum for all purposes. In another forum, I might say more.
>
> I'd suggested that I might be willing to prepare a talk on this for a
> Lisp conference, since I could then see a bunch of people in person
> and have the opportunity to discuss the issues and so there would be
> some upside to me. And, at least then, I'd have motivation to do the
> necessary prep. But the nearest one is a ways off, and that might not
> suit your timeline. No, I'm not really looking to do it at one of
> those monthly local user group meetings held in this or that town,
> since the interactive community those present are just the local
> people of one area, and there's still all the risk of being quoted and
> misquoted with none of the benefit.
Would you be interested in ILC 2009?
> I think this is an issue that matters, but that's why I prefer not to do
> it in a haphazard way.
Thanks for your continued participation,
Daniel
D Herring wrote:
> - Paraphrasing Guy Steele's 1998 OOPSLA keynote, languages must grow
> over time. CL is like a potted plant that became root-bound years ago.
Why don't you just get a big rubber stamp that says "I never program
computers", lather it up with India ink and stamp it on your forehead?
Because you just said that you are unable to program computers with
Common Lisp as it stands. I would recommend needlepoint as an
alternative, but... nahh, if you cannot program with CL you probably
cannot punch holes in things either.
Meanwhile, it is so exciting again to hear a Java and constraints
designer held up as an authority on programming languages.
>
> - While relatively few, the ANSI spec does have flaws.
> http://www.cliki.net/Proposed%20ANSI%20Revisions%20and%20Clarifications
Nope, yer not a programmer. You might try Logo to get started.
>
> - Core details such as multithreading are not addressed by the
> specification.
Omigod! Fall on the floor twitching!!!
> http://www.cliki.net/Proposed%20Extensions%20To%20ANSI
> http://cdr.eurolisp.org/
>
> - Media formats change over time. CLHS is great for what it is, but it
> is not the best format for reading the spec cover-to-cover. And it was
> written before MathML allowed proper embedding of equations.
Yeah, MathML is catching on like hotcakes.
> ANSI's pdf
> is a sad joke. Where can one legally obtain a quality, freshly printed
> copy? A bookmarked/hyperlinked PDF? Something embedded in an IDE as a
> tag cloud? Something suitable for ebook readers?
>
> - The annotated XML spec is a wonderful resource. Other languages have
> similar docs; why can't Lisp?
Are you stoned? Urine test in the morning for you!
> In short, it would be best if...
...you bozos stfu and wrote some code.
hth, kenny
On Apr 30, 3:34 am, D Herring <········@at.tentpost.dot.com> wrote:
elease this work publicly.
>
> Common Lisp needs a publicly-modifiable specification for many
> reasons, of which here are a few examples.
No, it doesn't. What it needs is for people to experiment with and
later standardise on new features. Those standards, when they are
agreed, can simply refer back to the original standard and describe
what they are modifying.
In other words: this is all displacement activity.
> CLtL2 provided a
> useful foundation for dpANS,
No, it didn't. CLtL *1* did.
Tim Bradshaw <··········@tfeb.org> writes:
>
>> Common Lisp needs a publicly-modifiable specification for many
>> reasons, of which here are a few examples.
>
> No, it doesn't. What it needs is for people to experiment with and
> later standardise on new features. Those standards, when they are
> agreed, can simply refer back to the original standard and describe
> what they are modifying.
Yes, and without a standards committee (which there shall never be) or a
BDFL (which there can never be), later standardisation will never
happen. De facto standardisation will never really happen either--IIRC
there are still implementations lacking Gray Streams, no?
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
If infinite rednecks fired infinite shotguns at an infinite number of road
signs, they'd eventually create all the great literary works of the world in
braille. --Discordian Quote File
D Herring <········@at.tentpost.dot.com> wrote:
+---------------
| Kent M Pitman wrote:
| >> The next best thing, CLtL2, seems to have a cleaner heritage.
| >
| > As a matter of intellectual property ownership, perhaps. But it
| > doesn't match the CL spec in semantics. So the question becomes: why
| > do you need such a thing in the first place? What would it accomplish
| > to acquire, even if Steele were to offer it, rights to someone's
| > personal description of a language that isn't even the one you could use.
...
| CLtL2 provided a useful foundation for dpANS...
+---------------
No it didn't! You haven't been listening, and as a result you have
the arrow of causality pointing in the wrong direction! As Kent said,
CLtL2 was a separate effort by Steele [and his publishers] which was
a snapshot *from* the work-in-progress being done by the ANSI X3J13
committee circa October 1989, midway between CLTL1 and the final ANSI
standard, but CLtL2 itself -- a separate, copyrighted book -- did
not feed back *into* the ANSI process at all. Therefore, it cannot
be said to have been any kind of "foundation for dpANS"; if anything,
the reverse is true.
*CLTL1* was certainly the foundation from which X3J13 began, but CLtL2
forked off in the middle and never came back (so to speak). Its Preface
and Acknowledgments should make this very clear:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/cltl/clm/node2.html
Preface
...
The purpose of this second edition is to bridge the gap between
the first edition and the forthcoming ANSI standard for Common
Lisp. Because of the requirement for formal public review, it
will be some time yet before the ANSI standard is final. This
book in no way resembles the forthcoming standard (which is being
written independently by Kathy Chapman of Digital Equipment
Corporation with assistance from the X3J13 Drafting Subcommittee).
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/Groups/AI/html/cltl/clm/node3.html
Acknowledgments
...
Digital Press and I gave permission to X3J13 to use any or
all parts of the first edition in the production of an ANSI
Common Lisp standard. Conversely, in writing this book I have
worked with publicly available documents produced by X3J13 in
the course of its work, and in some cases as a courtesy have
obtained the consent of the authors of those documents to quote
them extensively. This common ancestry will result in similarities
between this book and the emerging ANSI Common Lisp standard
(that is the purpose, after all). Nevertheless, this second
edition has no official connection whatsoever with X3J13 or ANSI,
nor is it endorsed by either of those institutions.
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
D Herring wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The general consensus seems to be that, barring an unexpected move by
> ANSI, the Lisp spec's copyright is intractably lost. Too many may could
> claim ownership, but nobody in a position to clarify things seems to care.
That's very strange!
>
> The next best thing, CLtL2, seems to have a cleaner heritage.
>
> Before I go bothering Guy Steele himself, does anyone around here know
> what CLtL2's status is? Like the ANSI draft, there's public sources, an
> HTML version, etc... and no obvious license agreement (save the
> restrictions added to the CLHS). Unlike ANSI, it should only take a
> small number of people to set that straight...
>
> Kent Pitman? Daniel Weinreib? You frequent this list; your names
> appear on the front cover; do you have any comments or insight?
This is a legal question involving intellectual property rights.
In the United States, at least, I have learned that these issues
can be complicated, and the only people who truly know are lawyers
who specialize in intellectual property.
However, I don't think there's any reason not to ask Guy Steele.
He would know whom to ask (probably at the publisher).
-- Dan
>
> I'm not looking for commercial rights, merely to freely distribute
> derivative works. For now, I've modernized the LaTex and generated a
> hyperlinked pdf (with index). Later it might be fun if anyone could
> note changes between CLtL2 and ANSI, interweave personal comments or
> example code, highlight different implementation's interpretations, add
> new sections, etc.
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
D Herring wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The general consensus seems to be that, barring an unexpected move by
> ANSI, the Lisp spec's copyright is intractably lost. Too many may could
> claim ownership, but nobody in a position to clarify things seems to care.
That's very strange!
>
> The next best thing, CLtL2, seems to have a cleaner heritage.
>
> Before I go bothering Guy Steele himself, does anyone around here know
> what CLtL2's status is? Like the ANSI draft, there's public sources, an
> HTML version, etc... and no obvious license agreement (save the
> restrictions added to the CLHS). Unlike ANSI, it should only take a
> small number of people to set that straight...
>
> Kent Pitman? Daniel Weinreib? You frequent this list; your names
> appear on the front cover; do you have any comments or insight?
This is a legal question involving intellectual property rights.
In the United States, at least, I have learned that these issues
can be complicated, and the only people who truly know are lawyers
who specialize in intellectual property.
However, I don't think there's any reason not to ask Guy Steele.
He would know whom to ask (probably at the publisher).
-- Dan
>
> I'm not looking for commercial rights, merely to freely distribute
> derivative works. For now, I've modernized the LaTex and generated a
> hyperlinked pdf (with index). Later it might be fun if anyone could
> note changes between CLtL2 and ANSI, interweave personal comments or
> example code, highlight different implementation's interpretations, add
> new sections, etc.
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:39:43 GMT, Daniel Weinreb <···@alum.mit.edu>
wrote:
>In the United States, at least, I have learned that these issues
>can be complicated, and the only people who truly know are lawyers
>who specialize in intellectual property.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the lawyers don't know either - ask 10
lawyers the same question and you'll get at least 10 different
opinions. U.S. copyright law is so complicated (and indeed is self
contradictory, not to mention that it violates consumer protection
law) that no one is certain what it means to any particular situation.
The only way to really find out how the law applies to you is to sue
(or get sued).
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address
George Neuner wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:39:43 GMT, Daniel Weinreb <···@alum.mit.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> In the United States, at least, I have learned that these issues
>> can be complicated, and the only people who truly know are lawyers
>> who specialize in intellectual property.
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble but the lawyers don't know either - ask 10
> lawyers the same question and you'll get at least 10 different
> opinions. U.S. copyright law is so complicated (and indeed is self
> contradictory, not to mention that it violates consumer protection
> law) that no one is certain what it means to any particular situation.
> The only way to really find out how the law applies to you is to sue
> (or get sued).
>
I have always wanted to say this :)
In the US no one can say if something is legal or not, not even a judge from the supreme court.
You can only find out after the fact. At least, that's the way I understand it.
-Antony
On Fri, 02 May 2008 09:00:55 -0700, lisp linux <·········@lisp.linux>
wrote:
>George Neuner wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:39:43 GMT, Daniel Weinreb <···@alum.mit.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In the United States, at least, I have learned that these issues
>>> can be complicated, and the only people who truly know are lawyers
>>> who specialize in intellectual property.
>>
>> Sorry to burst your bubble but the lawyers don't know either - ask 10
>> lawyers the same question and you'll get at least 10 different
>> opinions. U.S. copyright law is so complicated (and indeed is self
>> contradictory, not to mention that it violates consumer protection
>> law) that no one is certain what it means to any particular situation.
>> The only way to really find out how the law applies to you is to sue
>> (or get sued).
>>
>I have always wanted to say this :)
>
>In the US no one can say if something is legal or not, not even a
>judge from the supreme court.
>
>You can only find out after the fact. At least, that's the way I
>understand it.
There's an old legal joke: "What's the difference between God and a
Supreme Court Justice?" Answer: "God is not a Supreme Court Justice."
A Supreme Court majority opinion does indeed say what is legal or not
... there's no higher authority to ask.
Also the state of Louisiana goes by Napoleonic Code rather than
English Common Law as in the rest of the U.S. In Louisiana, each case
stands alone rather than every decision setting precedent for
subsequent similar cases. That makes it much easier to tell which
side of the law you're on and what the likely punishment will be for
breaking it. But it only applies to state law.
George
--
for email reply remove "/" from address