Hi, This is definitely a lisp book that should be included in app-doc. It's Paul Graham's almost legendary book. I recommend it should go in app-doc/onlisp. It comes with the ps, pdf files, and the lisp source code. "On Lisp is a comprehensive study of advanced Lisp techniques, with bottom-up programming as the unifying theme. It gives the first complete description of macros and macro applications. The book also covers important subjects related to bottom-up programming, including functional programming, rapid prototyping, interactive development, and embedded languages. The final chapter takes a deeper look at object-oriented programming than previous Lisp books, showing the step-by-step construction of a working model of the Common Lisp Object System (CLOS)."
Created attachment 22792 [details] onlisp-1.0.ebuild
Created attachment 22793 [details] The metadata file, containing the long description
Well, its better to keep related discussions in the corresponding bugs (easier to find later and give newcomers full story if necessary ;)), so I am replying here to the related part. On Thursday 01 January 2004 21:21, Andrei Barbu wrote: > I've contacted Graham, the person which wrote On Lisp. He said there > isn't a license per se that he's distributing it under (I wrote GPL in > the ebuild temporarely) What should I chage that to? > Well, GPL is not really a common text license, it is really code-specific. Though I saw people use ti, but usually there are better choices. The most common two are: GFDL (Gnu Free Documentation License) http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html Which is pretty much alike GPL, but tuned more towards docs (thus it essentially promotes common work on docs and the like) CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION LICENSE http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ IIRC, this one gives a bit more control to the original author but allows derived works (and of course redistribution and "performance"). My understanding is that it provides a bit more separation between original and derived works, by requiring clear credit for what was done by every author. This might be a better choice for a book or the like. Here is a short list with some references: http://freshmeat.net/faq/view/48/ > "As for the book, there isn't a license per se; I just have it on my > site for people to download. --pg" Well, legally this is not anywhere near being clear. Author does not forefeit his rights by this act, so the text is copyrighted by him. If he does not clearly make any kind of statment in the place of distribution (and ideally attached to the text itself) then just giving the link does not give any additional rights to anybody who accesses it. One cannot redistribute this work in any way, I think even including pointing others towards the document. Still, personal use should be allowed under copyright law, but this won't make it legal for us to provide the ebuild. Another issue is that without some kind of license attached author potentially can even be sued by unsatisfied reader. That's why virtually everybody has an "as is" clause in that or other form in their terms of distribution. The point here is that it might be beneficial for author to chose licensing terms with which he would feel comfortable. So, in short the issue is not really simple and it is best to clear it before we proceed on ebuild. I am not really much into legal stuff (all above is based on a bit of exposure I had to such issues over time), but I think there are people who know legalese better than me in the team :). You may want to fire an email to -dev. Of course the best resolution would be that author decides on the license and adds the terms to his site and to the text :). You may even point him to this bug if you wish.. George
From: Paul Graham <pg@archub.org> To: teval@myrealbox.com Subject: Re: Your book's licence Date: 3 Jan 2004 21:45:37 -0000 sure, go ahead; good luck, --pg In reponse for me asking if we can have explicit premission to put it in portage. He also said that he doesn't think the book needs a licence since published books don't need one. From what I know.. from every book I've seen, they do have a licence, but I'm not arguing with the man. :) What should we list it under? I'll forward the entire convo to george too.
What's the status on this bug? It has been untouched for nearly 9 months.
Does the source distributed with the source archive fit into the common lisp controller? I seem to vaguely recall such a thing in Debian....
A RESTRICT="mirror" should ensure we don't violate any copyrights.
Licensing issues aside, the Debian package the current ebuild uses appears to have been removed so this would have to rewritten from the ground up. That said, I do not expect Lisp to have changed much since the time this book was published so it shouldn't matter how old this is... The main question is, is there still any interest in adding this to the tree? If not, we shall close this ticket in 30 days.
