Discussion page for Freespec. So far not much interest from the wiki side, but there was a very interesting discussion on #lisp that I'll add here for the record.
Jul 17 20:07:54 <starseeker> I should get the Freespec site active again - it would be worthwhile if we really could clear that up.
Jul 17 20:08:22 <slyrus> is this the lisp freespec that was discussed on the gardeners list?
Jul 17 20:08:26 <starseeker> Yes
Jul 17 20:09:10 <starseeker> slyrus: I don't know if it's possible, but I don't know what else to do about that particular situation.
Jul 17 20:09:17 <slyrus> that would be useful. I'm sure this has been discussed far too many times here and elsewhere, but I think the best way to free it up is to publish derivative works and see who comes after you
Jul 17 20:09:54 <starseeker> slyrus: Heh - that's a bit like going tiger hunting by wearing big boots and stomping around in the brush as hard as you can.
Jul 17 20:10:19 * |klette| has quit ("Leaving")
Jul 17 20:10:31 * |klette| (n=klette@cD9088C5D.sdsl.catch.no) has joined #lisp
Jul 17 20:11:06 <starseeker> slyrus: It might be workable, except for two things: If I understand copyright law, there's no "silence gives consent" provision - they could wait until it was a raging success and then kill it with a lawsuit.
Jul 17 20:11:19 <starseeker> and if they did sue, there would be no money for a defense
Jul 17 20:11:26 <xarq> true, if there are 15 copyright violations it doesn't give you extra safety - you can all be sued at once just as easily if it's a large company
Jul 17 20:11:58 <dankna_> correct
Jul 17 20:12:06 <dankna_> I think you're better off writing material from scratch
Jul 17 20:12:22 * mkhl (n=mkhl@200-148-41-123.dsl.telesp.net.br) has joined #lisp
Jul 17 20:12:32 <dankna_> Linux didn't start by modifying commercial Unix.
Jul 17 20:12:50 <starseeker> The common lisp spec, unfortunately, is far beyond my abilities to recreate, even starting with the ISO lisp as a reference
Jul 17 20:13:15 <dankna_> yeah, but that's what you're left with
Jul 17 20:13:22 <starseeker> It's almost a thousand pages put together by a lot of smart people over a period of years, working full time.
Jul 17 20:13:30 <starseeker> I agree - if nothing else, ISO is a start
Jul 17 20:13:40 <starseeker> it's explicitly released under a usable license.
Jul 17 20:14:08 <xarq> a sequel to PCL would be a good step
Jul 17 20:14:10 <starseeker> but I'm also faced with the problem - how do I create a spec that is equalivent to ANSI common lisp without infringing on the document which DEFINES ANSi common lisp?
Jul 17 20:14:49 <dankna_> well
Jul 17 20:15:26 <starseeker> I suppose I could try for "better than ANSI Common Lisp" but as a newbie I can tell you how far I'd get with that.
Jul 17 20:15:37 <xarq> isn't copyright law that if 70% of the work is different, it's not in violation?
Jul 17 20:15:42 <dankna_> you want to make sure to cover all the same subjects but without borrowing phrasing or the organization of individual pages. borrowing the list of chapters ought to be fine.
Jul 17 20:15:50 <dankna_> xarq: I don't think so, but I'm not a lawyer
Jul 17 20:15:58 <starseeker> That's a tricky one.
Jul 17 20:16:12 <xarq> there are hundreds of books on C which are very similar in nature, and have to be
Jul 17 20:16:24 <xarq> well, dozens maybe
Jul 17 20:16:32 <starseeker> True, but a spec is a bit different from a regular book - it must be precise to be useful.
Jul 17 20:16:38 <dankna_> a standard technique is to read the stuff, take notes - but not in sentences, just words that remind you what it was about - and then, working from your notes without the original material open, summarize it
Jul 17 20:16:45 <dankna_> this advice is maybe too low-level to be helpful
Jul 17 20:16:49 <dankna_> but it's all I've got
Jul 17 20:16:56 <starseeker> No problem - glad to get it
Jul 17 20:17:05 <starseeker> The gardner's list pretty much ignored it :-(
Jul 17 20:17:14 <dankna_> cool
Jul 17 20:17:50 <foom> why does the common lisp spec need to be rewritten?
Jul 17 20:17:53 <starseeker> I would like
