On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:00:21PM -0500, Anthony Carrico wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 08:42:50PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> I have recently become the Debian package maintainer of scsh. I
>> have already updated it to 0.6.4 and fixed some nasty packaging
>> bugs, but in the course of checking if everything is OK, I have
>> found some non-free copyright licenses in some files.
> Thanks for taking up the Debian package.
> I'd like to see Sunterlib
> (http://www.scsh.net/resources/sunterlib.html) and the other scsh
> resources packaged for Debian too, are you interested in
> coordinating that?
I'm certainly interested in seeing this happen. I don't think we
should upload anything more to Debian until something is decided for
that licensing issue, but preparation work can certainly happen. I
don't have loads of time either now, except in the week-ends.
Do you have a JabberID (http://www.jabber.org/)?
> Debian's policy will create some troubles for scripts that look in
> /usr/local/lib to find packages, since Debian can't populate
We can change these scripts to look in /usr/lib *and* /usr/local/lib,
and create an empty directory in /usr/local/lib to populate
> Clean separation of the libraries from the system for distribution,
> and clean integration of separately distributed libraries into an
> installation -- these are the bane of Lisp!
The merriam-webster defines "bane" as something bad, "a source of harm
or ruin". So, you think that Lisp shouldn't have this? Or maybe you
are referring to something I don't know. Did the Lisp community die
trying to achieve these goals? Have they designed a monster to achieve
these goals, that destroyed the beauty of Lisp?
> I started Sunterlib (along with Martin) not because I thought
> putting all those libraries together was a good idea, but because it
> seemed like the only workable option -- Sunterlib and Scsh shouldn't
> be monolithic.
I'm confused now.
> Note that these license issues wouldn't be as severe if the
> proprietary-licensed libraries could be distributed seperately
> (assuming the compiler itself doesn't depend on them).
Well, hmm, I hoped someone more knowledgeable than me about scsh would
answer this question on this list.
MIT does free software, too. So maybe they could be convinced to
relicense their part, if they didn't already.
Description: Digital signature