From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: I don't understand Lisp
Date: 1998/11/07
Message-ID: <3119452017993412@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 409411685
References: <35fb182d.86050524@news.newsguy.com> <x24su8esh5.fsf@gairsay.aiai. 	ed.ac.uk> <h0XL1.67$yt.1485482@burlma1-snr1.gtei.net> <3115018001706846@naggu m.no> <N5cM1.9$4W1.268157@burlma1-snr1.gtei.net> <ey34su53a9l.fsf@haystack.aiai.ed.ac.uk> <1998Sep18.123342.10768@srs.gov> <36063374.1EEF2B1C@bt-sys.spamblock.bt.co.uk> <3115371273457872@naggum.no> <sfwg1dlzfb7.fsf@world.std.com> <mkd872m2br.fsf@ultra.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me> <71svno$2cv$1@spitting-spider.aracnet.com> <3119297904135739@naggum.no> <71tiag$raj$1@spitting-spider.aracnet.com> <4k918ivmr.fsf@beta.franz.com> <87u30cy7z2.fsf@duomo.pukka.org>
mail-copies-to: never
Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Craig Brozefsky <craig@onshore.com>
| That parenthetical statement is a rationalizing crock of shit.  It's
| alot easier to relax the restrictions on redistribution, modification
| and use when they are a few sentence of legalese, than when those
| restrictions are due to nonportable bytecode, and lack of a human
| readable representation for bug fixing and modification.

  you might not be aware that paying customers of Franz Inc get a lot of
  source code with their support agreement.  regexp.cl is in there, and you
  can fix bugs and modify it.  if you plan on distributing an application
  with the changed version, you are probably "a few sentences of legalese"
  away from doing that -- I haven't needed to, so don't know for certain.

| Also, binary distribution is just as capable of carrying restirctions on
| use and redistribution, like the "free" linux version of ACL does.

  I'm puzzled.  what would it take for you to unquote "free"?  how does
  your quoting "free" here relate to your lack of appreciation for the
  point that source code once read is a serious liability to writing your
  own, independent version?  the "Free" Software Foundation is very adamant
  that people not even look at non-free source code when duplicating the
  functionality.  in the strictest legal sense, giving you source code that
  is not freely redistributable _does_ reduce your ability to talk about
  the problems the source code you have read solves, since you are no
  longer as free to share particulars of your experience and understanding.
  please try to understand that source availability is not itself the
  panacea it is cracked up to be -- it is the _redistributability_ that is
  responsible for the visible benefits of source availability.

#:Erik
-- 
  The Microsoft Dating Program -- where do you want to crash tonight?