Re: CLtL2 copyright question

D Herring <dherring@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
.

Relevant Pages

  • English like wot she is spoke.
    ... A lot of the problem seems to stem from not being able to speak English ... "English" kids who just have such a poor grasp of the language. ... read them "cold" it won't matter so much. ...
    (uk.rec.sheds)
  • Re: What IDE are you using?
    ... Why does it matter if one can speak multiple languages anyway! ... I decided long ago that "fureigners" will call Americans arrogant no matter what you do. ... And even if I were selling stuff outside the US there are plenty of people who will buy without insisting I speak their language. ... It's more that they are not interested in building a basis for future growth with you because they don't see you as something that has much potential. ...
    (comp.lang.php)
  • Re: At what point (age) does learning a new language become futile?
    ... I don't speak without a detectable accent, ... For that matter, I think I'm ... It means that you have native competence in no language. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: RAP Spam
    ... no matter where the spam comes from they all speak this language: ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: book - jQuery
    ... Of course it isn't a language, languages are only in my analogy. ... In other words, jQuery is 50K of junk code, not a ... Matter of taste, if you ask me. ... You obviously dislike js frameworks and you're unhappy about where is ...
    (comp.lang.javascript)