slime-devel October 2006

slime-devel@common-lisp.net

41 participants
60 discussions

Re: [slime-devel] Re: COPYRIGHT change - slime contributors please read this
by Douglas Crosher 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Luca Capello wrote: > Hello! > > I'm cc:ing all the interested people (please read below), sorry if > someone of them daily reads SLIME-devel. Please reply to the > SLIME-devel mailing list only (I set R-T and M-F-T accordingly). > > Peter, I cc:ing you FYI, as you're the Debian SLIME maintainer. > > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:33:07 +0200, Marco Baringer wrote: >> what i really meant to say here was: what should I do for those files >> which have no copyright notice in them? >> >> The files in question are: >> >> swank-ecl.lisp (juan jose garcia is ok with putting this file into >> the public domain) > > As from [1], I think we need Johan Bockgård's agreement as well. > Moreover, the file was modified by Helmut Heller and Douglas Crosher. > I think we also need to add the copyright statement (or at least a > note about its authors). All of my contributions to SLIME are placed in the Public Domain. Regards Douglas Crosher

1 0

Re: [slime-devel] Re: COPYRIGHT change - slime contributors please read this
by Luca Capello 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Hello again! On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:48:04 +0200, Luca Capello wrote: > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:33:07 +0200, Marco Baringer wrote: >> what i really meant to say here was: what should I do for those files >> which have no copyright notice in them? >> >> The files in question are: I forgot the ChangeLog file: as Peter Van Eynde stated on the debian/copyright file, this is a generated file and probably it can be considered a derivative of the others. FWIW, its first author was Luke Gorrie :-) Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca

1 0

[slime-devel] COPYRIGHT change - slime contributors please read this
by Marco Baringer 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

hi, I have changed the license statement in SLIME's README. it used to be: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SLIME is free software. The source files are licensed separately for maximum compatibility with their host environment, for example slime.el is GPL and swank-cmucl.lisp is public domain. See the source files for more details. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is now this: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SLIME is free software. All files, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are public domain. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ So if you've contributed code to SLIME and haven't supplied a copyright statement your code is now public domain. If you have an issue with this please bring it up asap. For what it's worth the only files which were missing a copyright statement were swank-ecl.lisp, doc/Makefile, HACKING, NEWS, PROBLEMS and README. juan jose garcia (the original author of swank-ecl.lisp) is ok with the change so I don't think anyone should be surprised be this change. -- -Marco Ring the bells that still can ring. Forget your perfect offering. There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in. -Leonard Cohen

4 3

[slime-devel] (quit) in REPL -> error in *inferior-lisp* on sbcl
by Yaroslav Kavenchuk 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

sbcl 0.9.17, win32 slime from CVS head When I type (quit) in REPL, in *inferior-lisp*: ... ;; Swank started at port: 3878. ;; swank:close-connection: NIL debugger invoked on a UNBOUND-VARIABLE: The variable SWANK::*REAL-STANDARD-OUTPUT* is unbound. Type HELP for debugger help, or (SB-EXT:QUIT) to exit from SBCL. restarts (invokable by number or by possibly-abbreviated name): 0: [ABORT] Exit debugger, returning to top level. (SWANK::REVERT-GLOBAL-IO-REDIRECTION) 0] Thanks! -- WBR, Yaroslav Kavenchuk.

2 4

RE: [slime-devel] COPYRIGHT change - slime contributors please read this
by Bradford W Miller 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Well, I am not an expert in global law, however, you might just add a copyright notice to the effect that the entries in these files are (c) their individual authors. Because they contributed them explicitly to SLIME, there is at least an implicit license of use that follows the overall license of SLIME (e.g., FSF, or whatever), but even if SLIME were public domain, you could not assume that such a contribution would also be public domain, only that there is an implicit license to use in conjunction with the use of SLIME. Subject to debate, that might be worded: ;; Entries in this file are Copyright (C) their individual authors, ;; attributed or otherwise. An implicit license to copy and use these ;; contributions in conjunction with SLIME is presumed under the terms of ;; the GPL, however, additional rights are reserved to the respective ;; authors. Along with any additional needed legalese (express disclaimers of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose; inclusion of the GPL since I don't think it can simply be referenced as "GPL", which by the way, appears to be missing from the SLIME distro, and FSF already gives a sample license statement for how to talk about it.) I think this would preserve the spirit of having made a contribution to SLIME (that is, an author would certainly have the expectation the work would be shared and used as SLIME is), and expressly acknowledges the implicit copyright on such works, without the suspect action of a declaration by a third party that the work is in the public domain (which if relied upon on the basis that the declaration was part of the distro, could cause a lot of legal problems down the road should one of the original authors or their heirs eventually step forward and make a claim). B/R Bradford W. Miller -----Original Message----- From: mb(a)bese.it [mailto:mb@bese.it] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 7:30 PM To: Bradford W Miller Cc: slime-devel(a)common-lisp.net Subject: Re: [slime-devel] COPYRIGHT change - slime contributors please read this Marco Baringer <mb(a)bese.it> writes: > what should i do for README and HACKING where there is no single > author? what i really meant to say here was: what should I do for those files which have no copyright notice in them? The files in question are: swank-ecl.lisp (juan jose garcia is ok with putting this file into the public domain) doc/Makefile HACKING NEWS PROBLEMS README -- -Marco Ring the bells that still can ring. Forget your perfect offering. There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in. -Leonard Cohen

1 0

[slime-devel] Recursive errors
by Dan Weinreb 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Try doing the following in a Slime REPL buffer, in SBCL: Type (/ 1 0), entering SLDB Type E, get prompted for a form to eval Type (aref nil 0), entering a recursive SLDB Type 0, to return to the outer SLDB. Fails: Swank tries to evaluate *sldb-stack-top* but it is unbound. -- Dan

1 0

[slime-devel] Daily ChangeLog diff
by mbaringer＠common-lisp.net 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Index: slime/ChangeLog diff -u slime/ChangeLog:1.961 slime/ChangeLog:1.962 --- slime/ChangeLog:1.961 Mon Oct 2 11:29:02 2006 +++ slime/ChangeLog Tue Oct 3 17:49:29 2006 @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ +2006-10-03 Marco Baringer <mb(a)bese.it> + + Change license statement to say that all files without an explicit + copyright notice are public domain. This change will allow SLIME + to moved out of debian's nonfree tree. + + * README: Update license statement. + 2006-10-02 Marco Baringer <mb(a)bese.it> * slime.el (slime-highlight-compiler-notes): New variable.

1 0

RE: [slime-devel] COPYRIGHT change - slime contributors please read this
by Bradford W Miller 03 Oct '06

03 Oct '06

I don't think this is a good idea for two reasons. 1) you don't have the right to put anything but your own work into the public domain (and even then because of implicit copyrights, etc. even a dedication to the public domain may not be sufficient). 2) by putting the work into the public domain you lose all control over it - someone else can sell it, and take credit for it for instance, and the author (or anyone else for that matter) will have no recourse. For some information on how to put something in the public domain, see: http://www.fin.ucar.edu/legal/faq_publicdomain.html I don't want to discourage you from putting your work into the public domain (assuming it is possible), but rather note that your statement that something is in the public domain carries no weight if it is not owned by you in the first place. Copyright, is in fact implicit when a work is fixed (i.e. written to disk), so it is held by the author (or in the case of a work for hire, by the client) regardless of having an explicit notice. If you want to put something into the public domain, you will at the very least have to have the author submit a statement of dedication to that effect. Brad Miller -----Original Message----- From: slime-devel-bounces(a)common-lisp.net [mailto:slime-devel-bounces@common-lisp.net] On Behalf Of mb(a)bese.it Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 5:54 PM To: slime-devel(a)common-lisp.net Subject: [slime-devel] COPYRIGHT change - slime contributors please read this hi, I have changed the license statement in SLIME's README. it used to be: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SLIME is free software. The source files are licensed separately for maximum compatibility with their host environment, for example slime.el is GPL and swank-cmucl.lisp is public domain. See the source files for more details. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is now this: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SLIME is free software. All files, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are public domain. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ So if you've contributed code to SLIME and haven't supplied a copyright statement your code is now public domain. If you have an issue with this please bring it up asap. For what it's worth the only files which were missing a copyright statement were swank-ecl.lisp, doc/Makefile, HACKING, NEWS, PROBLEMS and README. juan jose garcia (the original author of swank-ecl.lisp) is ok with the change so I don't think anyone should be surprised be this change. -- -Marco Ring the bells that still can ring. Forget your perfect offering. There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in. -Leonard Cohen _______________________________________________ slime-devel site list slime-devel(a)common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/slime-devel

2 2

[slime-devel] Daily ChangeLog diff
by mbaringer＠common-lisp.net 03 Oct '06

03 Oct '06

Index: slime/ChangeLog diff -u slime/ChangeLog:1.960 slime/ChangeLog:1.961 --- slime/ChangeLog:1.960 Wed Sep 27 18:53:45 2006 +++ slime/ChangeLog Mon Oct 2 11:29:02 2006 @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@ +2006-10-02 Marco Baringer <mb(a)bese.it> + + * slime.el (slime-highlight-compiler-notes): New variable. + (slime-compilation-finished): Only highlight notes when + slime-highlight-compiler-notes is non-NIL. + 2006-09-28 Marco Baringer <mb(a)bese.it> * swank-loader.lisp (compile-files-if-needed-serially): Don't

1 0

[slime-devel] Sldb closes connection with Clisp restarts?
by Gregory Novak 01 Oct '06

01 Oct '06

If I type (undefined-function) at the slime repl, I get the (expected) sldb backtrace with possible restarts. If I choose any of them (except "Abort Slime Request") slime closes the connection. I've tried this on a variety of different Emacs, Slime versions, and Clisp versions including: Emacs: 21.3, 21.4, cvs from 5-17-06 Slime: cvs from 1-20-06 and ~1 hour ago Clisp: 2.35, 2.39 OS: OS X and some version of FreeBSD Notably this doesn't happen when I use Sbcl instead of Clisp. That is, I can still type at the Repl after exiting the slime debugger with Sbcl. Thanks! Greg

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

slime-devel October 2006